beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 52,00,000 and the interest rate thereon from December 31, 2010 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
On November 12, 2010, Suwon District Court 2010Da34537 (hereinafter “Defendants shall jointly and severally pay 52 million won to the Plaintiff until December 30, 2010: Provided, That where the above amount is not paid by the payment date, the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from the day after the date of payment to the day of full payment shall be paid.”
[Ground of recognition] According to the above facts of determination as to the ground for a claim as to Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 52,00,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from December 31, 2010 to the day of full payment.
Defendant B’s assertion: (a) on the date of distribution of distribution procedure D by the Seoul Western District Court, the Plaintiff filed an objection with respect to the dividend of Defendant B; (b) however, Defendant B paid KRW 17,00,000 equivalent to the amount of KRW 1/3 of the amount indicated in the protocol of mediation to the Plaintiff; (c) the Plaintiff agreed not to claim the said amount against the Defendant B; and (d) withdrawn the said objection, the instant claim of this case to the purport that it is unjustifiable.
According to the evidence Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, on April 22, 2010, the distribution schedule was prepared with the content that Defendant B received dividends of KRW 40,000,00 as wage creditors and KRW 18,360,782 as right holders of provisional seizure in the distribution procedure of Seoul Western District Court D, Seoul Western District Court D on April 22, 2010. However, the fact that Defendant B had raised objection to each of the above dividends of Defendant B, and Defendant B submitted the "application for delivery of dividends" and "written waiver of dividends and written waiver of objection" in the above procedure on October 10, 201.
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the agreement as alleged by Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and it is difficult to accept the above assertion by Defendant B.
The plaintiff's conclusion is that the defendants are the defendants.