beta
Text
The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff KRW 325,534,607, as well as 5% per annum from October 26, 2019 to December 24, 2020.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B is the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).
B. On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff and D entered into a quasi-loan agreement (hereinafter “instant quasi-loan agreement”) with the effect that “D is KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won to be paid from the Plaintiff from December 21, 2017 to October 2018” (hereinafter “the instant quasi-loan agreement”), and Defendant B, as the representative director of D, entered into a notarial deed on the quasi-loan agreement (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).
C. At the end of January 2019, Defendant B agreed to pay the Plaintiff a loan obligation under the instant quasi-loan agreement with D, and the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with the following content.
Defendant C guaranteed the above debt owed to the Plaintiff around that time.
A loan certificate: 500 million won shall be borrowed in accordance with the following conditions:
- The following period of borrowing is between December 15, 2017 and October 30, 2018:
The interest rate on the borrowed amount shall be 5% per annum.
(hereinafter omitted)
D. Based on the original copy of the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff collected KRW 16,293,141 on October 4, 2019, and KRW 132,751,857 on October 25, 2019 from E, after receiving a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim attachment and collection order”) against D’s E Co., Ltd. and F Co., Ltd. with respect to the claim against D’s E Co., Ltd. and F Co., Ltd. based on the original copy of the instant notarial deed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, and 4 statements [the fact that the defendants' seals affixed to Gap 1 are affixed to the defendants' seals is affixed to the defendants' seals does not conflict between the parties. Thus, the authenticity of the seal is presumed to have been established, and the authenticity of the entire seal is presumed to have been established in accordance with Article 358 of the Civil Procedure Act.
As to this, the defendants are the defendants.