대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,839,221 and KRW 24,273,50 among them, 24% per annum from June 17, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 31,90,000 to the defendant on August 12, 2014 at the rate of 5.9% per annum, interest rate of KRW 20% per annum (within one month per annum), 22% per annum (within one month per annum, but within two months per annum), and 24% per annum (within two months per annum), and 24% per annum. The defendant was found to have lost profits due to delay in paying the principal and interest from March 21, 2015; the principal and interest of the loan as of June 16, 2015 are 24,839,221 won (=the principal and interest of KRW 24,273,504, KRW 426, KRW 139,535 won per annum).
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 24,839,221 won and 24,273,504 won among them with delay damages calculated by the rate of 24% per annum from June 17, 2015 to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion B and C established a legal entity to the Defendant, but first received the instant automobile installment loan in the name of the Defendant, and then proposed that the legal entity established following the instant automobile installment loan and the name of the owner of the said vehicle succeed to the foregoing automobile installment loan and received the instant automobile installment loan.
Afterwards, B did not succeed to the registration of the transfer of vehicle ownership and the succession to the instant installment loans, although B did not succeed to the registration.
Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's request.
B. In light of the judgment, since the Defendant’s conclusion of the instant automobile installment loan contract in its own name agreed on the Plaintiff’s repayment of the above loan obligation against the Defendant, the Defendant is liable to repay the above loan obligation to the Plaintiff, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant are merely an internal relationship between the Defendant and B or C, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the instant loan may be rejected on the ground of such circumstance.