beta
Text
1. The Defendants together with the Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000, as well as 20% per annum from September 1, 2008 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 4, 2007, the Defendants issued two copies of the Promissory Notes (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) at the Plaintiff’s face value of KRW 10 million and KRW 25 million, each payment period, each at sight, and each at the place of payment at the place of payment at the place of payment at the place of issue, and issued and delivered a notarial deed stating that compulsory execution shall be accepted if the payment of each of the said Promissory Notes is delayed.
B. On September 4, 2007, the Defendants agreed to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 35 million by August 30, 2008 for delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum if the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 35 million by August 30, 2008.
C. On August 30, 2008, the Plaintiff presented the instant promissory note to the Defendants at the place of payment, but all payment was refused.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants jointly have a duty to jointly pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 35 million and to pay 20% per annum from September 1, 2008 to September 30, 2015 that the Plaintiff seeks from September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
As to this, Defendant C, as the formal representative director of the company operated by Defendant C, believed the commitment of Defendant B to adjust all obligations to the Plaintiff, entered the name in the instant promissory note and interest in arrears agreement documents, and Defendant C’s seal was Defendant B, and thus, Defendant C’s burden of the above promissory note amount is unreasonable.
Even according to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C’s seal was affixed to the Promissory Notes, etc. according to Defendant C’s intent, so Defendant C shall be deemed to have issued the Promissory Notes jointly with Defendant B, and even if the Defendants were to solely pay the Promissory Notes.