beta
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2019.01.25 2018가단57177

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay 40 million won to the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from December 26, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From January 2009 to October 201, the Plaintiff agreed to lend the money requested by the Defendant to the Defendant at the interest rate of 2% per month (payment on January 25), and continued monetary transactions.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant, around November 25, 2017, repaid KRW 11 million out of the principal and interest outstanding to the Plaintiff, and repaid the last interest on December 25, 2017, and thereafter, did not pay interest on the outstanding principal and interest at KRW 40 million of the outstanding loan (hereinafter “instant loan”) and the said money from December 26, 2017.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant delivered the instant loan borrowed from the Plaintiff to Nonparty C and used the said money.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or is not clearly disputed, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, and 3; the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments] 【No evidence Nos. 1 【No. 1 does it become insufficient to reverse the above recognition or interfere with the above recognition】

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as sought by the Plaintiff, as the agreed upon between December 16, 2017 and December 16, 2017.

3. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, since the defendant is not the defendant but the person who uses the loan in this case ultimately, the defendant is not liable for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan in this case, separate from the liability for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan in this case C, and the defendant merely delivers the loan in this case is not liable for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan. However, the plaintiff and the defendant of the loan in this case are the same as mentioned above. The defendant's above assertion is merely the motive for the loan in this case, and it

4. If so, the plaintiff's objection.