대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
3. This.
1. On June 8, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant agreed to pay interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per month from August 1, 2014 to the date of full payment with respect to the above loan without a fixed deadline, the amount of KRW 20 million on July 3, 2014, the amount of KRW 2.5 million on July 12, 2014, and the amount of KRW 2.5 million on July 17, 2014, and the Defendant agreed to receive interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per month from August 1, 2014 to the date of full payment. However, each of the items of subparagraphs 2 and 4 are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the above loan to the Defendant on each of the above dates, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff paid the above money to the Defendant around June through July, 2014. If the Plaintiff raised funds as above between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Defendant would operate the money exchange business in the Philippines and make profits therefrom in proportion to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 4 as to the conjunctive claim, the plaintiff agreed to receive interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per month from the defendant on October 17, 2014, currency 2.5 million won in the Philippines, and each of them from August 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum on August 1, 2014 and the rate of 5% per annum for the Plaintiff within the limit of 25% per annum from August 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.
The defendant's defense to the effect that the above agreement is null and void by Article 104 of the Civil Act, since it is a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness due to the defendant's old-age. However, the statement of evidence No. 4 is alone.