beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.05.15 2019나57631

대여금(약정금)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are relatives.

B. On January 18, 2008, the Defendant: (a) repaid 18,00,000 won to the Plaintiff until December 31, 2008; (b) paid interest rate of 19% per annum to the Plaintiff; (c) after the repayment date, 25% per annum; (d) provisionally attached on the land of Gangwon-do to repay, and (e) repaid 300,000 won per month from January 208, and deducted this amount from the principal; (d) thereby, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is completely extinguished (Evidence 1; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan and interest and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. On the judgment of the defendant's defense (1) the defendant asserted that the loan certificate of this case was based on the defendant's debt related to the plaintiff, such as C, D and E bank loans, and that the defendant did not confirm it properly even though the above debt did not exist or was already repaid, and that the defendant was made by mistake without confirming it. ② Furthermore, the plaintiff was made by the wind coercion to compel the defendant to make payment to his children as well as the defendant's economic difficulties at the time. Thus, the defendant asserts to the purport that it will be revoked by Article 109 and Article 110 of the Civil Code.

③ In addition, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the loan certificate of this case was not the Defendant’s intention, and that the Plaintiff was well aware of such fact, and thus, is null and void pursuant to Article 107 of the Civil Act. The Defendant also asserts that the Defendant remitted KRW 400,000 to the Plaintiff on January 30, 2008 through G bank account in the name of his/her father and wife, and that the amount was already repaid by remitting KRW 300,000 to the same account on March 1, 208.

(2) Priority.