beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 556,186,148 and KRW 290,053,263 among them, from May 28, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant Korea Home Shopping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) obtained a loan of KRW 500 million (hereinafter “instant loan”) from a new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) around June 15, 2010, and Defendant A jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation to repay the above loan.
B. On December 28, 2010, the New Bank transferred the instant loans to the Defendant Company and notified the Defendant Company of the said transfer on December 30, 2010.
On December 23, 2011, APS Specialized in the First Asset-backed Securitization re-transfer the above loans to the Plaintiff. On January 4, 2012, the Defendant Company notified the above assignment of claims.
C. As of May 27, 2014, the principal and interest of the instant loan amounting to KRW 290,053,263, and KRW 556,186,186,148, total of the interest accrued and interest on the instant loan amounting to KRW 266,132,85, and the interest rate on the instant loan amounting to KRW 19% per annum.
[Ground for recognition] between the plaintiff and the defendant company: The facts that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant company: Gap's statement of confession (Article 150 (1) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act), Gap's certificate 1 [the name mentioned in the letter of credit transaction and the letter of credit guarantee are written by the defendant Gap's pen book, and there is no dispute that the seal affixed to that part is made by the seal of the defendant Gap, and thus the authenticity of the part of the letter of credit guarantee is presumed to be established. The defendant Gap affixed the seal to the above document, and signed the above letter of credit guarantee. The defendant Gap affixed the seal to the above document, and signed the seal for the purpose of the loan of this case. According to each of the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 8, Eul stated that "B did not participate in the banking business related to the guarantee obligation of the defendant company, and there was no fact that Eul signed the document of credit guarantee at the time of the above loan agreement," and the defendant A was prepared with a loan agreement of KRW 100 million from the defendant A.