beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 31,00,000 and 5% per annum from May 31, 2017 to June 27, 2019.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. (1) On May 2005, the Plaintiff made a loan to Defendant D on or around May 4, 2008. (2) Defendant D prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff on February 4, 2008 a letter of loan stating that the loan will be repaid in KRW 150 million, but failed to comply with the loan.
3) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”)
The inside director E is the same as that of Defendant D. Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”)
(2) Defendant C was liable for the construction cost of KRW 61,540,000 to Defendant C. However, in order to repay Defendant D’s loan to the Plaintiff, Defendant C prepared a letter of payment stating that KRW 51,540,000 shall be paid to the Plaintiff by September 30, 2016, on condition that Defendant C would be at least 10,540,000,000 from Defendant C’s loan repayment. Defendant C and Defendant D jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B’s loan payment. (b) Defendant B paid KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff on October 26, 2016, and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the real estate of KRW 359,00 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
2) Defendant B prepared a written confirmation that he/she would complete the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 31 million on April 2, 2016 and issued it to the Plaintiff by May 30, 2017. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
2. Determination as to the main defense of Defendant C and D
A. Defendant B’s assertion that the right to collateral security was created in the future of the Plaintiff with respect to the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff agreed not to impose any legal liability on Defendant C and D, so the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful against the foregoing subordinate agreement.
B. Defendant C and D submitted a certificate of No. 1 (Agreement) as evidence consistent with their respective arguments.
However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, defendant D shall be subject to the judgment of 2019.