대여금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 30,000,00 and the Defendants B from November 6, 2012 to September 2, 2014.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statement No. 1, 2012, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 with the repayment date set on November 5, 2012 under Defendant C’s joint and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 6, 2012 to the delivery date of a copy of each complaint against the Defendants from the date following the repayment date, to the date of delivery of a copy of each complaint against the Defendants, and KRW 20,000 per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of payment.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that at the time of the above lending, the Defendants agreed to receive interest at the rate of 3% per month, and sought payment of interest calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from November 5, 2012 to the date when the repayment date is made. Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff’s interest agreement was entered into on the part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, the part exceeding the above part of the damages for delay recognized as above should be accepted.
As the Defendants agreed to extend the repayment date according to the circumstances of the Defendants, it is unfair for the Plaintiff to file a lawsuit against the Defendants without a peremptory notice. Accordingly, according to the evidence No. 1, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants determined that the extension of the repayment date with the Plaintiff at the time of borrowing the above loan was possible. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants were extended the repayment date due to the circumstance of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, even though they did not agree on the extension of the repayment date. Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and further, the Plaintiff and the Defendants determined that the repayment date can be extended can only be extended and the Plaintiff must make a separate peremptory notice.