beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) from February 22, 2012, with respect to KRW 203,547,835 and KRW 166,00,000 among them.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A and B, the Plaintiff entered into a credit transaction agreement with Defendant A and the credit limit amount to KRW 200 million per annum, interest rate to KRW 9 billion per annum, and overdue interest rate to KRW 17 million per annum from January 15, 201, and the Defendant B entered into a credit transaction agreement with KRW 260,000 per annum from January 15, 201 to KRW 17 million per annum. On the same day, the Defendant B provided joint and several guarantee to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 2.6 million with respect to all obligations owed by the Plaintiff under the above credit transaction agreement; Defendant A began to pay back obligations against the Plaintiff from March 15, 2011 to February 21, 2012 (i.e., the balance of the loan principal to Defendant A as of KRW 16,600,7375,37537.7.37.5
Therefore, Defendant A, as the principal obligor, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 203,547,835, the sum of the balance of the loan principal and the damages for delay, and the amount of KRW 166,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 per annum 24% of the agreed overdue interest rate from February 22, 2012 to the date of full payment. Defendant B, as a joint surety, is jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 2
2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Jinche Chemical Co., Ltd.
A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s existence of a preserved claim has a loan claim against Defendant A based on a credit transaction agreement dated December 15, 2009. This constitutes a case where the Plaintiff had already occurred at the time of the Defendant’s act of disposal of the property or the legal relationship that forms the basis thereof had already existed, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim can be the preserved claim of the obligee’s right of revocation.
B. Whether the fraudulent act was established or not, Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1, 2.