대여금반환 등
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 34,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 31, 2012 to March 20, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 34,00,000 won a loan borrowed from the plaintiff's Cho division C several times on January 24, 2012, and to the plaintiff an agreement to pay the above loan up to December 30, 2012. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 34,000,000 won as well as 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 31, 2012 to March 20, 2015, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, and damages for delay calculated at 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion or defense
A. As to this, the defendant asserts that he would pay the above agreed amount to the plaintiff step by step after the due date, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff extended the due date for payment to the defendant or allowed the repayment by setting a specific method of installment repayment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit, even though it is acknowledged that it is stated in the evidence No. 4 of this case that "if the situation does not exist even after the due date," it is stated in the evidence No. 4 of this case.
B. Next, the Defendant asserted to the effect that C set off the Plaintiff’s claim on an equal amount with C as the above claim, because C agreed to pay the Defendant a debt of KRW 10,860,000 on behalf of D, or guaranteed the performance of the above obligation. However, C agreed to pay by subrogation as above.
Since there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant guaranteed the debt of the borrowed loan or D, the defendant's defense is also without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.