beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 110,000,000 and the interest thereon from March 4, 2009 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 4, 2009, D filed an application with the Defendants for a payment order for loans with Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da23340, and the above court on March 17, 2009 issued a payment order with the purport that “the Defendants jointly and severally pay D KRW 110,000,000 and interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from March 4, 2009 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “advance payment order”). The above payment order was served on March 20, 209 to the Defendant C Co., Ltd. and confirmed on April 4, 2009, and was served on March 23, 2009 to Defendant B and finalized on April 7, 2009.
B. On September 3, 2012, D transferred to the Plaintiff the claim that was finalized with the foregoing preceding payment order (hereinafter “instant claim”), and around September 4, 2012, D notified the Defendants of the assignment of the said claim by content-certified mail.
C. On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the instant claim.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 10 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 4, 2009 to the day of full payment, for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the preceding payment order, according to the purport of the preceding payment order.
B. As to the defendants' assertion, although the defendants did not borrow KRW 110,00,00 from D, they cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because they did not object to the prior payment order, despite the absence of the fact that they borrowed KRW 110,00,00 from D, they did not object to D's request, but they did not have any evidence to acknowledge the above facts. However, the defendants' assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's conclusion of this case.