beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 170,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from April 11, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 16, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a cash investment contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) with the Plaintiff on May 18, 2007, with an investment of KRW 150,000,000 until May 18, 2007, and KRW 150,000 until June 30, 2007, the Nonparty Co., Ltd. paid 30% of the shares of the Nonparty Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff and paid KRW 20,000,000 as repayment for the last day of each month from August 31, 2007, and distributed profits from that time. At the time of entering into the said contract, Defendant B, a managing director of the Nonparty Co., Ltd, and Defendant C, a real manager of the Nonparty Co., Ltd, jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff under the instant investment contract.
B. After that, the Plaintiff paid KRW 150,000,000 to the non-party company on May 18, 2007 under the instant investment contract, and KRW 150,000,00 on June 29, 2007, respectively, but the non-party company paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2007, it did not perform its obligations under the instant investment contract, in addition to the payment of KRW 20,00,000 to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2007.
C. Upon raising the issue of the Plaintiff, the non-party company and the Defendants around July 10, 2008 changed the amount of KRW 300,000,000 received from the Plaintiff between May 18, 2007 and June 29, 2007 to a loan with an interest rate of 5% per month, the documents previously prepared shall be null and void. The documents of the non-party company were written prior to August 30, 2008, KRW 60,000,000 on September 20, 208, KRW 140,000,000 on September 20, 208, and KRW 100,000,000 on October 20, 2008, and each of the Defendants issued the above loan certificates to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “joint and several debt certificates”).
However, the non-party company and the Defendants did not perform properly the obligations under the loan agreement, which is an ordinary loan agreement based on the loan certificate of this case, and the Plaintiff.