대여금
1. As to KRW 266,788,260 and KRW 246,081,863 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall start from November 13, 2014 to November 26, 2014.
1.The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties:
The Defendant agreed to pay damages for delay in accordance with the Plaintiff’s prescribed interest rate when the Plaintiff loses interest due to overdue interest, etc., and received each loan by concluding a loan transaction agreement (including card loan theory) as indicated below.
On March 4, 2010, 1201, 18% per annum 180 million won per annum on March 2, 2011, 2011 (long on September 2, 2014) due date of the agreement and the interest rate rate for delay in the loan of the loan of the loan of the loan of KRW 50 million on March 23, 2010 (long on September 2, 2014), “The base rate of interest 4.01%”)” (long on June 27, 2011 (long on June 20, 2014) KRW 3.7 million “fixed (long on March 55 per annum)” of KRW 20 million on March 23, 2012 (Extension on March 20, 2015).
B. However, the Defendant did not pay interest on each of the above loans, thereby losing the benefit of time, and on November 12, 2014, the details of each of the above principal and interest of loans as of November 12, 2014 are as listed below:
Serial 1234,252,066 won in total, 18,126,376 won in total, 252,378,42 won in total, 29,760,174 won in total, 2482,945 won in total, 246,243,119 won in total, 32,069,623 won in total, 97,076 won in total, 246,081,863 won in total, 20,706,397 won in total, 26,78,260 won in total.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, as of November 12, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by applying the rate of 18% per annum from November 13, 2014 to November 26, 2014, to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 246,081,863 won per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.
B. On May 28, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Gwangju District Court 2014Da19547, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was groundless. However, the Defendant’s application for individual rehabilitation was only based on the circumstance that the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation.