대여금
1. As to KRW 52,195,396 and KRW 50,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from March 24, 2017 to March 16, 2018.
1. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment on the cause of the claim as to the whole and the arguments, the Plaintiff made a monetary lending contract (Evidence No. 2) with the Defendant with the purport of each of the following items: (a) as between B and the Defendant on March 25, 2016; (b) as between B and the Defendant, the Plaintiff is the obligor, setting the maturity period on March 23, 2017; (c) interest rate of 4.6% per annum; and (d) interest rate of 8% per annum; and (e) interest rate of 100 million won per annum to the Defendant and B; and (b) the Plaintiff made a monetary lending contract (Evidence No. 2) with the intent to respectively borrow the amount equivalent to 50% of the transferred loan to the Defendant’s account; and (c) thereafter, the Plaintiff prepared to the Defendant on March 25, 2
4. The fact that a total of KRW 100 million was remitted on August 6, 18, 2000 and the fact that an interest calculated at the rate of KRW 4.6% per annum for KRW 50 million equivalent to KRW 150 million in the above remittance amount as of March 23, 2017 is recognized.
According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 52,195,396 in total with the interest of KRW 50 million (=interest of KRW 2,195,396 equivalent to KRW 50 million with the interest of KRW 50 million with the interest of KRW 50 million with the interest of KRW 2,195,396 with the interest of KRW 100,000 with the interest of KRW 50,000 with the interest of KRW 50,000 from March 24, 2017 following the due date for payment, until March 16, 2018 when the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant, 8% per annum under the above agreement and damages for delay calculated with 1
2. The defendant's argument on the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff established an asset management company, hired the defendant as executive officers of MSP partnership, which is the plaintiff's affiliate company, and did not perform the above promise by withdrawing the establishment of asset management company. B and the defendant borrowed the above KRW 100 million from the plaintiff in order to pay retirement allowances, etc. to the officers and employees of MSP partnership who lost their work daily.