beta
Text
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 32,683,912 and KRW 31,874,706 among them, per annum from July 2, 2020 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. D borrowed 50,00,000 won from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on January 26, 2018 at interest rate of 11.9% per annum, 14.9% per annum, 14.9% per annum, and 60 months during the repayment period (hereinafter “instant loan”), and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligation against D. E.
B. On June 12, 2020, E transferred the claim for the instant loan to the Plaintiff, and around June 15, 2020, E notified D and the Defendant of the assignment of the said claim.
C. As to the instant loan, the principal remaining as of July 1, 2020 shall be KRW 31,874,706, and the interest unpaid shall be KRW 781,649, and the delay damages shall be KRW 27,557.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 14.9% per annum from July 2, 2020 to the date following the date of the final calculation of interest, to the date of full payment, to the plaintiff, the transferee of the claim for the loan of this case (the principal of KRW 31,874,706, interest of KRW 781,649, interest of KRW 757) and the remaining principal of the loan of KRW 31,874,706 (the remaining principal of KRW 31,874,57).
B. The defendant's assertion was that D, the representative director of the defendant, established the defendant corporation and allowed F to obtain a loan from E. The defendant did not know at all about the loan agreement, etc. of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable. However, the defendant's claim cannot be avoided or rejected on the ground that it did not claim damages against F on the ground of the above circumstances, regardless of seeking damages against the defendant or D's claim for damages against F. Thus, the defendant's claim is rejected.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.