beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.11.05 2019가단508450

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 25,00,000 as well as 12% per annum from January 18, 2017 to April 3, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 5, 2012, the network E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) lent to the Defendant KRW 50 million, and KRW 50 million on December 22, 2015, without setting the respective due date for reimbursement.

B. The Deceased and the Defendant agreed to the interest rate of a monetary loan agreement between the Deceased and the Defendant at 1.5% per month, but agreed to change the rate to 1% per month from April 2015.

C. From November 2012 to June 9, 2017, the Defendant paid interest from the deceased’s account or Nonparty F’s account each month, and the amount paid was appropriated as interest accrued until January 17, 2017 of each of the above loans.

The Deceased died on November 5, 2016, and his inheritor is Nonparty G and the Plaintiffs, a sibling of the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including branch numbers, if any) and the whole purport of the pleading

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the deceased has a claim for return of KRW 100 million and interest claim against the defendant. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs who are the inheritors of the deceased 25,00,000 won each according to their respective inheritance shares (=100 million won x 1/4), and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum (12% per annum from January 18, 2017 to April 3, 2019, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case containing a declaration of intention of the claim for return of loans from January 18, 2017 to May 31, 2019 (20% per annum from the following day to May 21, 2019) the provisions of the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2978, May 21, 2019).

The portion claimed in excess of the damages for delay at the above statutory rate is dismissed as there is no ground to recognize it.

3. Conclusion.