beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 2,122,037,740 and KRW 1,098,227,097, among them, from September 12, 2013.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence No. 1 to No. 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the following facts are acknowledged: ① the Plaintiff’s repayment period to the Defendant A Religious Organization B Educational Association on August 2, 2007 (hereinafter “Defendant church”) on August 2, 2012; and KRW 2 billion was set at 15.35% per annum; ② Defendant C may recognize the loan obligation of the Defendant church within the limit of KRW 2.6 billion.
As the principal debtor, the Defendant church is obligated to pay the principal of and interest on loans of KRW 2,122,037,740 (as of September 11, 2013) and damages for delay calculated by applying the rate of KRW 15.35% per annum from September 12, 2013 to the date of full payment. Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant church to pay the said money within the limit of KRW 2.6 billion.
(2) On April 19, 2010, Defendant C asserted that on April 19, 2010, the representative (member) of the Defendant church was changed to D, and that the Plaintiff recovered an amount equivalent to KRW 1 billion through the auction procedure regarding real estate equivalent to KRW 3.5 billion around 2013, and that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.
However, since the above defendant is a joint and several surety that guarantees the fixed debt specified, he loses the status of the representative of the defendant church.
Even if a joint and several liability is borne by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is seeking the payment of the remaining principal and interest of the loan, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.
Although Defendant church asserts that the remaining members of the church at the time of the loan of this case (hereinafter referred to as “previous church”) did not exist since it reconvened the sex of the remaining members and changed their representative after disposing of all the properties of the church at auction, it shall not be accepted as there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge such assertion. However, Defendant church closed down its business after the closure of the argument of this case (the closure of business on May 13, 2015).