beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A shall have full payment of KRW 77,574,450 and KRW 43,345,856 among them from August 8, 2014.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that the cause of the claim in this case is the cause of the claim in attached Form 1, and all of the statements in No. 1 through No. 6 (including a serial number) can be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings.
Therefore, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 7,574,450 won and 43,345,856 won among them with 17% interest per annum from August 8, 2014 to the date of full payment. Defendant B, C, and D jointly and severally with Defendant A an amount of money calculated at the rate of 39,00,000 won and 27,978,351 won per annum from August 8, 2014 to the date of full payment, as requested by the Plaintiff, and each limited amount of money of KRW 39,00,000,000 shall be paid within the limit of KRW 17% per annum from August 8, 2014 to the date of full payment.
I would like to say.
The Plaintiff claimed that Defendant B, C, and D shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 39,00,000,000, which is the maximum amount of collateral guarantee and the amount of KRW 27,978,351, which is the principal of the loan, from August 8, 2014 to the date of full payment. However, as seen in the attached form of claim, Defendant B, C, and D are jointly and severally liable with Defendant A to pay damages for delay on the principal and interest of the loan and the principal of the loan within the limit of KRW 39,00,00,00, which is the maximum amount of collateral guarantee. Therefore, there is no reason for exceeding the part of the Plaintiff’s claim.
2. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion
A. Defendant B, first of all, asserts that there is no memory to prepare a loan transaction agreement and a letter of guarantee, etc.
In light of the purport of the entire arguments, the above defendant B prepared a credit transaction agreement, a collateral guarantee, and an application for extension of the due date of credit, etc. in the statement Nos. 4-2, 5-1, 2, and 6 of the evidence No. 4-2, 5-1, 2, and 6, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. Defendant B, following, even though the agreement ratio under the credit transaction agreement was 15% per annum, the Plaintiff is annually a year.