대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 200,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from January 18, 2013 to September 6, 2013, and from September 7, 2013.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff loaned to the Defendant KRW 220 million on February 27, 2008, ② KRW 50 million on September 18, 2009, ③ KRW 50 million on February 1, 2010, ④ KRW 85 million on April 26, 2010, without specifying each due date and interest. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant to return each of the above loans by the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20 million per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day after the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff on February 26, 2008, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 220 million, including the above KRW 200 million, to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant on February 27, 2008 following the date.
According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant on February 27, 2008. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay from January 18, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is obvious that the Plaintiff is the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the Defendant.
(A) On February 27, 2008, the Plaintiff asserts that he additionally lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant, in addition to the above KRW 200 million. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 220 million to the Defendant is insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not accepted). Furthermore, the Defendant paid the above money under the name of the Defendant’s investment in the Defendant’s work activities, not for the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant, and the above loan certificate was made to grant legal effect.