대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 88 million with respect to the Plaintiff, 4% per annum from September 30, 2017 to September 11, 2018, and the following.
1. As of September 18, 2017, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the loan certificate was duly prepared that the Defendant borrowed KRW 88 million from the Plaintiff on September 18, 2017 at the interest rate of 4% per annum, and the due date for repayment on September 20, 2018 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
The Plaintiff transferred KRW 41 million to the Defendant’s account on September 22, 2017, and KRW 47 million on September 29, 2017, respectively.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the facts established on the determination of the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s total amounting to KRW 88 million to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 47 million) may be recognized as having leased the Plaintiff at an annual interest rate of KRW 41 million and due date of September 20, 2018, barring any special circumstance.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages calculated by applying the agreed rate of 4% per annum from September 30, 2017 to September 11, 2018, the delivery date of the complaint, and 15% per annum from the following day to May 31, 2019 pursuant to the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., and 12% per annum from the following day to the date of repayment.
3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant: (a) had the construction cost to be received from the Plaintiff; (b) at the Plaintiff’s request, the Plaintiff prepared the instant loan certificate and did not separately claim the said construction cost; and (c) the Plaintiff did not claim the payment of the loan against the Defendant; (b) thus, this constitutes a false indication or declaration of intention; or (c) the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the loan against the Defendant was set off against the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost against the Plaintiff.
However, even if all the evidence presented by the Defendant was examined, the amount of KRW 88 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant after receiving the instant loan certificate.