beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90 million and the interest pertaining thereto from November 20, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. On May 7, 2014, Defendant B concurrently assumed the obligation of KRW 90,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and on June 18, 2015, Defendant B did not perform the obligation even though he/she agreed to make installment payments from July 25, 2015, and lost the profit of installment payments pursuant to the agreement for the loss of time, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the loan amount of KRW 90,000,000 as well as the statutory damages for delay.
(b) Article 280 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment by deeming the relevant provisions as private investors);
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the claim was based on the Plaintiff’s loan of KRW 90 million to the Defendant C from March 20, 2012 to September 18, 2012; Defendant C agreed on November 29, 2013 to pay the Plaintiff the debt of KRW 90 million to the Plaintiff by June 2014; and barring any special circumstance, Defendant C and the Plaintiff are jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount of KRW 90 million to the Plaintiff as well as the statutory damages for delay.
B. As to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C asserts that Defendant C had discharged Defendant C’s above obligation against the Plaintiff. (2) In the event that the assumption of obligation overlaps with each other as to the interpretation of the party’s intent under the assumption of obligation agreement, it shall be deemed that the assumption of obligation is assumed if it is not clear whether the assumption of obligation is the acceptance of obligation or the counter-influence of the counter-influence of the counter-influence of the counter-influence of the obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3104, May 24, 198). The burden of proving that there are special circumstances to deem the assumption of obligation as the assumption of obligation is the party who asserts it (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da81948, Dec. 12, 2002). According to the evidence No. 1, B’s statement as to the evidence No. 1.