beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 and 20% per annum from March 15, 2013 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. A judgment on the cause of the claim was made by Defendant B, around October 17, 2008, by acquiring KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff as investment money, and as to this, the Plaintiff’s complaint was made on April 14, 201 that Defendant B would pay KRW 36 million to the Plaintiff in installments until April 30, 2012 (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”), and Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation against the Plaintiff on October 14, 2011, the fact that Defendant C and D jointly and severally guaranteed KRW 35 million out of the obligation under each of the instant notes against the Plaintiff is not disputed between the parties, or that it is recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements set forth in subparagraphs A1 through 3.
Meanwhile, until October 14, 2011, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 15 million out of the above KRW 40 million.
According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 25 million (i.e., KRW 40 million - KRW 15 million) and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 15, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of final delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case filed by the Plaintiff.
2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that Defendant B’s failure to pay part of the obligations under the instant text against the Plaintiff is merely KRW 14,066,50,00.
However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B paid the Plaintiff more than KRW 15 million, which is the repayment amount of the Plaintiff’s person as seen earlier, to the Plaintiff. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Although Defendant B asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim violates the good faith principle, there is no evidence as to the circumstances that can be seen as such.
Defendant C’s joint and several guarantee of Defendant C’s obligation to the Plaintiff is based on the premise that the debt amount is confirmed by Defendant B, and that Defendant B is disputing the debt amount.