beta
Text
1. Each appeal filed by the plaintiff and the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant B borrowed 2% of interest monthly from the plaintiff on December 22, 2007, and 17 million won as of March 25, 2008 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and Defendant C prepared a loan certificate stating that the above loan of this case is jointly and severally guaranteed, Defendant B paid 200,000 won to the plaintiff on January 17, 2008, including the repayment of 200,000 won to the plaintiff on March 17, 2012 in the order of interest on the loan of this case, principal principal payment, the loan of this case can be acknowledged as the ground for the loan of this case as of March 17, 2012.
2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 5,241,290 won and 24% interest per annum from March 18, 2012 to the date of full payment.
B. As to the above, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount paid by the Defendants should be preferentially appropriated for the interest on the borrowed money on July 17, 2007, as it lent the Defendant the amount of KRW 17 million other than the borrowed money in this case, and therefore, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 9.8 million after deducting the amount of KRW 2 million from the interest on the borrowed money from July 17, 2007 to the Defendant B’s account on July 17, 2007. However, it cannot be acknowledged that the Plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 17 million to the Defendant B, separate from the above amount, and according to the purport of the whole evidence and arguments, the Plaintiff appears to have lent the total amount of KRW 1.7 million to the Defendant from July 17, 2007 to December 22, 2007 and prepared the certificate of this case.
3. The Defendants’ assertion that the payment of the principal of the instant loan from April 2010 to the Plaintiff would be treated as the full repayment of the instant loan.