beta
Text
1. Defendant B and Defendant C jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 181,50,000 and KRW 55,000,000 among them.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 26, 2006, the Plaintiff was unable to receive a refund of KRW 130 million from the Defendant Company B, and on September 26, 2006, the Plaintiff leased KRW 150 million to the Defendant Company B at the rate of 24% per annum on September 26, 2007, and the Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation of the Defendant Company B and issued to the Plaintiff on June 19, 2009 a written statement of payment to pay KRW 280 million by December 30, 2009.
B. Meanwhile, through an auction procedure around December 2008, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 3.5 million out of KRW 130 million from the above lease deposit and received KRW 150 million from Defendant C out of KRW 150 million, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million on August 23, 2012, KRW 620 million on May 6, 2013, and KRW 95 million on December 4, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B and C, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid loan amount of KRW 55 million ( KRW 150 million - KRW 95 million - KRW 100 million), KRW 126.5 million ( KRW 130 million - KRW 3.5 million) due to the unpaid lease deposit, and KRW 181.5 million among them, KRW 24% per annum from June 1, 2009 to the date of full payment, as claimed by the Plaintiff, and as to KRW 55 million from June 1, 2009 to the date of full payment, the agreement between Defendant B and the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case at the Plaintiff’s request after sale of the leased object, and as to KRW 24 million from July 2, 2014 to 2014 to the date of full payment or delay damages from March 28, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Defendant C alleged to the effect that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of Defendant C by the Plaintiff’s coercion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, it cannot be accepted.
3. The plaintiff.