beta
서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.09 2017가단5156228

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 93,710,028 and KRW 68,988,235 among them, and the amount from June 20, 2017 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) On June 2, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant enter into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with each of the following terms: “The loan of general household funds, amount of loan (limit): 80,000,000 won: Interest rate: the floating rate: 14% higher than the agreed interest rate by adding the overdue interest rate to the agreed interest rate and the overdue interest rate: 19% higher than the agreed interest rate.”

(2) On November 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “the instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant on the basis of the following: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “the instant loan agreement”) with each of the terms: “a loan out of general household funds, amount of loan (limit): KRW 20,000,000: Interest rate: Price fluctuation rate: 17% by adding the overdue interest rate to the agreed interest rate; and (b) the overdue interest rate.

3) As of June 19, 2017, the sum of the loans unpaid under the instant loan agreement is KRW 70,040,417 (i.e., principal KRW 51,488,235, etc.) (i.e., interest at KRW 18,52,182,182), and the sum of the loans unpaid under the instant loan agreement is KRW 23,669,611 (i.e., interest at KRW 17,50,000 (i.e., principal amount at KRW 17,50,500), and KRW 6,169,611). [Judgment of the court below]

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum, which is the interest rate for delay, from June 20, 2017 to the date of full payment, to the date of full payment, for each of the principal amount of KRW 93,710,028 (=70,040,417,23,69,611) and 68,988,235 (=48,235 won).

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that "the debt collector who represented the plaintiff has committed a tort against the defendant, and thus the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed." However, the above circumstance alone is difficult to deem that the defendant is exempted from the obligation under each of the loan agreements of this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is with merit.