대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 24% per annum from January 1, 2008 to June 28, 2013 to the Plaintiff.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2 as to the cause of the claim and all the arguments, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,00 to the defendant on July 30, 2007, interest rate of KRW 2% per month, maturity of December 31, 2007, and interest rate of KRW 100,000 to the defendant on December 31, 2007. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum as agreed upon by the plaintiff from January 1, 2008, which is the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case until June 28, 2013, and from the next day until the day of full payment.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the defendant received the above money from the plaintiff not from the plaintiff, but from the investment for the joint production of the film in the preparation for production, so long as it is recognized that a disposal document is authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in the disposal document unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents of the statement are denied. According to the statements in subparagraphs 3-1 and 2 of the evidence 3-2, it is recognized that the defendant agreed to borrow the above money from the plaintiff with the plaintiff and the defendant that the borrowed money can be converted into the investment for the film, so in order to recognize the defendant's assertion, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to convert the above money into the investment for the film after the above agreement, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.