대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 as well as 25% per annum from May 1, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
In fact, on December 1, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 200 million to the Defendant on March 30, 2013, at the maturity of payment, at the interest rate of 5% per annum, and at the interest rate of 25% per annum.
The Defendant repaid interest to the Plaintiff by February 2015.
In addition, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 3,609,646 on June 7, 2016, and KRW 1,804,823 on June 14, 2016 as dividends received from the Plaintiff.
[Grounds for recognition] No dispute exists, the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from March 1, 2015 to April 30, 2015 shall not exceed 8,356,164 won per annum if the Defendant first appropriated KRW 3,609,646 paid on June 7, 2016 and KRW 1,804,823 paid on June 14, 2016, which was paid by the Defendant to determine the cause of claim for determination of the purport of the entire pleadings.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20 million won loans and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum under the agreement from May 1, 2015 to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.
Whether the defendant agreed to extend the maturity period for the defendant's defense and the defendant did not have an obligation to pay due because he agreed to extend the maturity period for the defendant's defense and the maturity has not arrived.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize the agreement on extension of payment period only with the evidence of subparagraph 1, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.
The defendant's defense cannot be accepted.
Whether the Defendant decided to receive the payment of dividends only at a general meeting of shareholders, the Defendant’s defense to the effect that the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay the principal and interest to the Plaintiff in addition to the dividends, since the Defendant passed a resolution to receive the principal and interest only with the dividends received from the Plaintiff.
However, the evidence No. 1 stated that “if the plaintiff distributes dividends to the defendant, the dividends shall be appropriated for the interest and principal,” and thus, the resolution was made by the plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders on the sole basis of the evidence No. 1.