beta
Text
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 168,082,609 won and the interest rate of 20% per annum from December 14, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the theory of changes as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 300,000,000 to a medical corporation C (hereinafter "C") on June 25, 2019 as "25% per annum, interest rate of delay 20% per annum, and rate of redemption 20% per annum, and September 25, 2019" (hereinafter "loan Claim") and the defendant may recognize the fact that he/she jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation of C.
In addition, until December 13, 2019, the Plaintiff was paid the remainder exceeding KRW 168,082,609 among the above loan claims by C, etc.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, a joint guarantor, is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from December 14, 2019 to the date of full payment after the plaintiff received the last repayment, to the date of full payment, unless there are special circumstances to the plaintiff, who is the creditor.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff reported the instant loan claim as rehabilitation claim in the rehabilitation procedure against C as the rehabilitation claim, it is improper to seek double payment of the above loan claim to the defendant who is a joint guarantor.
In light of the overall purport of the statement and changes in the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff may acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff reported the instant loan claims to C as rehabilitation claims in the rehabilitation procedure (Seoul bankruptcy court No. 2020 no. 1,0022), which was in progress with C. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was paid part of the instant loan claims during the rehabilitation procedure.
In addition, according to Article 250, Paragraph 2, Item 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, even if the debt of the principal debtor is adjusted to reduce or exempt by the rehabilitation plan, the debt adjustment effect does not extend to the person who bears the debt together with the principal debtor, such as the joint and several guarantor, so the defendant's assertion is concerned.