beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B’s 18 million won plus plus 2.1 million won jointly and severally with Defendant C and B from August 3, 2007.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to Defendant B at a rate of 25% per annum, and on August 2, 2007, the due date for reimbursement of KRW 3 million was determined and lent to Defendant B at a rate of 66% per annum, respectively, and on May 6, 2007, on February 6, 2007.
B. On February 21, 2007, the Plaintiff lent 2.1 million won to Defendant C at a rate of 66% per annum and due date on March 21, 2007. Defendant B guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation to the Plaintiff on the same day.
C. On February 21, 2007, the Plaintiff lent 2.830,000 won to Defendant D with 66% per annum and due date on March 21, 2007. Defendant B guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation to Defendant D on the same day.
On February 21, 2007, the Plaintiff lent 2.8 million won to Defendant E with 66% per annum and due date on March 21, 2007, and Defendant B guaranteed Defendant E’s obligation to the Plaintiff on the same day.
[Reasons for Recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 5 in Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts found in the judgment as to the cause of the claim, as the plaintiff seeks, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 18 million and the amount of KRW 2.1 million from August 3, 2007, which is the day following the last due date for repayment, and Defendant C and B jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount of KRW 2.1 million from March 22, 2007, which is the day following the due date for repayment, and the amount of KRW 2.83 million from March 22, 2007, which is the following day for the repayment, from March 22, 2007, and from March 22, 2007, Defendant E and B jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 2.8 million from March 22, 207, which is the next day following the due date for repayment.
3. Determination as to Defendant C and E’s assertion
A. Defendant C asserts that all of the KRW 2.1 million have been repaid through B in 2009.
However, there is no other evidence to prove the above assertion, since the statement of No. 1 B is insufficient to acknowledge the above assertion, it is not acceptable to accept the above assertion.
(b).