beta
Text
1. Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 3,392,836,782 and KRW 1,925,103,117.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff may recognize on June 13, 2008 that on June 13, 2008, the plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 4 billion to defendant A Co., Ltd. (Co., Ltd. (Co., Ltd. B before the alteration: hereinafter referred to as "A") at the maturity of payment on June 13, 2011, interest rate fluctuation rate (Article 3 (2) 2 of the General Terms and Conditions for Credit Transactions) and the highest interest rate of delay interest rate of KRW 15% per annum, Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations to the plaintiff, as of August 31, 2014, the above loan principal and interest amount of KRW 3,392,836,782 (principal principal, KRW 1,925,103,117).
According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above principal and interest of KRW 3,392,836,782 as well as KRW 1,925,103,117 as principal and interest of KRW 1,925,107 as of September 1, 2014, which is the day following the above settlement date, until October 1, 2014 (the defendant D appears to have received the complaint in this case as of October 1, 2014, which is the day after the last copy of the complaint in this case, (the defendant D appears to have received the complaint in this case as of October 1, 2014), the rate of delay interest of KRW 15 per annum as of October 1, 2014, and damages for delay calculated at 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Litigation before Amendment until September 30, 2015.
2. Determination as to Defendant C and D’s assertion
A. Defendant C and D asserted that the scope of joint and several sureties for the instant loan is merely a guarantee for the additional provision of a building to be newly constructed on the revised E and seven parcels of land (hereinafter “instant land”). However, the evidence submitted by Defendant C and D alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(No evidence exists to acknowledge that Defendant C and D provided a new building on the instant land as an additional security). (B)
Defendant C and D were exempted from joint and several liability when extending the extension of the loan of this case.