beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly:
A. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 80,000,000, and KRW 100,000 to Plaintiff B, respectively.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including additional numbers), the facts constituting the ground for the appeal (excluding the part of joint and several surety guaranteed by defendant D), and there is no counter-proof.
B. According to the above facts, since the contract for the use of bathing facilities (service) of this case (hereinafter “the contract for the use of this case”) has expired on June 27, 2017, Defendant C is the principal debtor. Defendant C is jointly liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 21, 2017 to the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case as the guarantor, and as requested by the Plaintiffs, Defendant C is liable to pay damages for delay calculated from September 21, 2017 to the date of full payment.
C. According to the following facts, the Defendants jointly have a duty to pay to the Plaintiffs the agreed earnings calculated at the rate of KRW 5,400,000 per month from November 28, 2016 to the time the said deposit is returned in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant employment contract.
2. As to the assertion by Defendant C, the allegation that the expression of intent under the instant use contract was made based on Defendant D’s fraud and coercion, but the allegation is rejected inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge Defendant D’s deception or coercion.
3. On the premise that Defendant D’s assertion is not a joint and several surety for the obligation under the instant contract for use, but a simple guarantee is given to Defendant C, and thus, the primary debtor is capable of performing the obligation, and the relevant property should be first claimed and executed.
(Article 437 of the Civil Code provides the guarantor's defense of highest and search, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant C has sufficient ability to repay and that its execution is easy.