beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally liable to the Plaintiff 10 million won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from June 18, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination
A. In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including additional numbers), witness D, and E's testimony as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff introduced the defendants from E on May 2006, and the plaintiff asked the defendants to arrange the loan to the financial institution at the time. The plaintiff requested the defendant Eul to arrange the loan to the defendant on June 2006. The defendant Eul paid KRW 43 million to the defendant Eul, KRW 10 million to the defendant Eul around October 2006, and KRW 30 million to the defendant Eul, KRW 20 million to the defendant Eul and KRW 20 million to the defendant Eul by means of money transfer, remittance, or E's testimony. On the other hand, the plaintiff pointed out that the above money was not used as originally intended, and requested the defendants to return the money, and the defendants to deliver a promissory note to the plaintiff on December 21, 2006.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants agreed to jointly and severally return KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff by issuing the said promissory note to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2006.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from June 18, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the date of final service of the original copy of the instant payment order, as requested by the Plaintiff.
(Plaintiff asserted a loan claim or a claim for reimbursement of benefit as a selective cause of claim, but as such, the claim for the agreed amount is fully accepted, it is not judged separately as to the other cause of claim).
Defendant B’s assertion that the above promissory note was not effective as it was made by the Plaintiff’s duress, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion is rejected.
2. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.