대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 41,149,777 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 16, 2017 to the date of complete payment.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, engaged in food processing business, etc., commenced rehabilitation procedures on December 30, 2015 (this court 2015 Gohap10080), and approved the rehabilitation plan on December 26, 2016, and completed rehabilitation procedures on July 26, 2018.
B. On August 10, 1990, the Defendant joined the Plaintiff’s employee and served as a director or head of a department, etc., and retired on October 31, 2014.
C. The Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff several times during his/her tenure of office, and on January 1, 2013, entered the date, affiliation, class, address, and resident registration number in the loan certificate (No. 2, No. 18) stating that “The Defendant would repay the money by December 31, 2013” (No. 163, No. 262, and No. 167).
From January 24, 2013 to December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff deducted total of KRW 23,041,038 from the Defendant’s wage as an employee loan interest. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 35,71,520 by offsetting the Defendant’s retirement allowance of KRW 12,670,482 from the loan.
E. On February 24, 2015, the Defendant sold to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000,000 of 38479 square meters of D Forest land (hereinafter “instant land”). On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff calculated the principal of the loan as of February 24, 2015 as KRW 91,149,777, and determined the remainder of the loans offseted by the purchase price as KRW 41,149,777.
【Ground of recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 through 9, 18, 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the principal of the borrowed amount to the plaintiff 41,149,777 won and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant’s assertion (i) as of February 14, 2015, transferred the ownership of the instant land, instead of paying the full amount of the Defendant’s loan debt between the representative director E and E at the time of the Plaintiff’s representative director.