beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.03.29 2015가단225147

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 37,00,000 and 12% per annum from June 21, 2013 to August 17, 2015.

Reasons

1. On November 30, 1998, the Plaintiff lent interest of KRW 40 million to Defendant C for a period of one million (1.2 million per month) and one year from the date of borrowing the due date. The fact that Defendant B guaranteed Defendant C’s above obligation is not in dispute between the parties, or is recognized by the purport of the entry of evidence No. 1 and all pleadings.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 21, 2013 to August 17, 2015, as they seek by the Plaintiff, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, as set forth in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, to the day when a duplicate of the instant complaint was served on the Defendants.

2. The Defendants asserted that all of the above loans were repaid to the Plaintiff.

The Defendants paid 64.6 million won to the Plaintiff over 18 times from April 3, 2001 to March 18, 2009. However, there is no dispute between the parties concerned, while the Plaintiff and the Defendants did not exercise the agreement or right of designation as to satisfaction of obligations, the above 64.6 million won is appropriated for repayment in the order of the principal (Article 479 of the Civil Act) even if the Plaintiff and the Defendants repaid the loan in this case, in order of the interest and the principal (Article 479 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the above 64.6 million won is calculated by calculating that the sum of interest from the date of lending the principal amount of KRW 4.6 million to the date of June 21, 2013 as the date of commencing payment from the date of commencing payment to the date of June 21, 2013 (the same applies to the interest rate of KRW 30% per annum as prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act from June 30, 2007).

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.