beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.11.13 2014가단114269

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from June 20, 2011 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. On June 17, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant as a joint guarantor and entered into said agreement (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”) with C as follows. On June 20, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,000 as a loan to C on June 20, 201.

o Interest on June 20, 2012: There is no interest if the loan is returned by the due date, and if the loan is not returned by the due date, the interest rate of 20% per annum from June 20, 201, which is the due date of the loan shall be added.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 40,000,000 won and 20% per annum from June 20, 2011 to the date of full payment, jointly and severally with C, the obligor of the instant monetary loan contract.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable in light of the fact that the plaintiff is not the plaintiff but the plaintiff's son, and the defendant suffered a lot of losses due to the previous transaction with D.

In light of the fact that the loan agreement of this case was prepared by the creditor, debtor C, and joint and several sureties, the defendant, as the defendant, in relation to the loan agreement of this case, even if it is assumed that even if the person who led to monetary transactions with C is the plaintiff's son, it is difficult to deny the plaintiff's status as the creditor of the loan contract of this case. Further, just because the defendant suffered loss from the previous transaction with D, it cannot be denied the defendant's performance of the obligation against the plaintiff as the joint and several sureties for the loan contract of this case. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.