대여금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 and KRW 100,000 among them, from August 1, 2013 to the date of full payment.
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 1-1-2 (the defendant alleged that the "C" stated in the upper right side approval column of each of the above documents was forged, but the above approval column merely indicates the plaintiff's internal approval procedure, and it does not affect the authenticity of each of the above documents), No. 2-1-2, and No. 2-2, the plaintiff, a company engaging in credit business, etc., has due date for payment of KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant on March 5, 2013.
7.31.No interest rate shall be fixed and the interest rate shall be 36 per annum;
o.10,000,000
7. 31. 31. Interest rate, 18% per annum, and 36% per annum, respectively, can be recognized, and the Plaintiff’s loans from the Defendant.
4.10. Loans extended on 10.10
6. The fact that the Plaintiff received interest payment from October is the Plaintiff.
According to this, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 36% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate of 200,000,000 won and 100,000,000 won among the above loans, from August 1, 2013 to the date of full payment, from August 1, 2013, which is the day following the due date, to the day of full payment, 10,000,00 won, with the interest or delay damages rate of 18% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from June 11, 2013 to July 31, 2013, and 36% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant alleged that the above 200,000,000 won paid from the plaintiff was invested in the company operated by the defendant by the wife of the representative director D, and that the loan transaction contract was prepared with the defendant known as a form of a measure. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion against the statement in the above loan transaction contract, which is a disposal document, without merit.
B. Next, the Defendant’s representative director D is in charge of the Plaintiff Company E’s accounting, and the said Company’s money is KRW 200,000,000.