beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.12.16 2020가단2324

대여금 독촉

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 1, 2018 to April 2, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4 of the judgment on claims and the whole purport of the pleadings, the fact that the plaintiff extended a total of KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant over 12 times from March 22, 2017 to February 2, 2018 is recognized that the defendant prepared a letter of payment to the plaintiff that he/she would pay the plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 out of the above KRW 50,000 to June 30, 2018, and the remainder by August 30, 2018. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of KRW 50,000,000 and delay damages.

As to this, the defendant asserted in the reply that a sum of KRW 9,385,960 has been repaid from January 15, 2018 to July 22, 2019, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this (the defendant did not appear in the court, but did not submit as evidence). Rather, according to the evidence No. 5, according to the evidence No. 5, after the submission of the above reply, it is recognized that the defendant again drafted to the plaintiff a confirmation letter that he/she recognizes all of KRW 50 million on July 22, 2020, which is after the submission of the above reply. The above part of the defense of payment is without merit.

Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 50,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from September 1, 2018 to April 2, 2020 when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff from September 1, 2018 following the day following the day after the last payment due date specified in the letter of payment, as requested by the Plaintiff.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.