beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 20 million with the Plaintiff and Defendant B with respect thereto from March 30, 2014 to September 14, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 29, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to Defendant B as 1% per month interest, and Defendant C guaranteed this.
B. Defendant B is currently incapable of performing its obligations.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Examining the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for the payment of the above loan, barring any special circumstance, according to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay 200 million won to the Plaintiff and 12% per annum from March 30, 2014 to September 14, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case against the above Defendant, and 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015; 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; Defendant C has the obligation to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings against the above Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit within the scope of recognition.
2. As to the determination of Defendant C’s assertion, the above Defendant has the ability to repay to the Defendant B, and thus, is unable to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant C. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the execution thereof is easy (in light of the fact that the Defendant’s loan was not repaid until now, and that it was not repaid despite the promise to repay in the course of pleading, etc., it appears that the above Defendant B did not have the ability to repay). The above argument by the above Defendant is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified only within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are justified.