beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B and C shall be jointly and severally paid KRW 100,000,000 and shall be fully paid from October 13, 2012.
Reasons
1. On October 12, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant B with the due date set on December 10, 2012; and (b) Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the above loans.
【Defendant B, C: Confession of confession (Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff agreed to lend the above KRW 100,00,000 to Defendant B and C as 5% per month because there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B and C, Defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 100,00,000 per annum pursuant to the agreement from October 13, 2012 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
B. The Plaintiff asserted that, with respect to Defendant D, the Plaintiff agreed to lend the above KRW 100,000,000 to 5% per month. However, the entries alone by Party A2 are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, Defendant D, jointly and severally with the above Defendants, is obligated to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to be performed by Defendant D from October 13, 2012 to October 21, 2015, which is the date of this judgment, and to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act until May 21, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
As to this, Defendant D argues that the term of validity of his certificate of personal seal impression attached to a loan certificate has expired for more than one year, and that it is null and void because the Plaintiff failed to perform the duty to notify at any time, anywhere, and how it was lent to her joint and several sureties. However, the above reasons alleged by the above Defendant do not constitute a ground to invalidate joint and several sureties. Thus,
3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B and C in conclusion.