대여금
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 10% per annum from April 10, 2017 to February 5, 2018; and (b) the Plaintiff.
If Gap evidence No. 1 appears to be the whole purport of the pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 100 million to the defendant on April 8, 2017 at the interest rate of 10% per annum on December 31, 2017 and paid the above money on April 10, 2017.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan 100 million won and the above loan 100 million won per annum from April 10, 2017, to February 5, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from February 5, 2018, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
As to this, the defendant asserts that the above money was borrowed by the defendant as the service cost for a broadcast program, and there was a separate agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff to repay the borrowed money at the time of the broadcast program of the relevant drama, so long as the relevant broadcast program has not yet been completed, the defendant asserts that the due date has not yet arrived.
However, the statement No. 1 in the document No. 1 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant asserted a separate maturity agreement, and there is no other evidence, so the above argument by the Defendant is
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is legitimate, and it is decided to accept it.