beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.08 2018가단236764

대여금 반환

Text

1. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s KRW 50,00,000 as well as the annual interest rate of 12% from July 26, 2017 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an agreement on loans as follows.

The Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) account at that time.

[Loan] The Plaintiff [Loan] C] Defendant [Contents of Agreement] and the borrower will lend and repay the funds in accordance with mutual financial standing on the following terms:

Amount of loans: 50 million won

(b) Date of loan of funds: October 6, 2015;

Date of repayment of funds: 12% interest per annum on October 6, 2016 and 50,000 won per month (However, early repayment or extension may be made by mutual agreement);

B. On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff and the non-party company entrusted the preparation of an authentic deed of a loan for consumption for consumption for a debt with the purport that “The debt amount that the non-party company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff (the debt amount for the repayment of the deposit for lease under the contract for sale for lease for non-party company D) is KRW 50 million as of October 6, 2015,” and the notary public drafted the authentic deed of the above contents.

C. From November 2015 to April 2016, the Plaintiff’s account was deposited in the name of Nonparty Company, KRW 500,000 per month, and KRW 500,000 per month from May 2016 to March 2017 under E’s name.

Since then, the Plaintiff’s account was deposited with KRW 1 million on May 22, 2017, and KRW 500,000 on June 24, 2017 in the name of the Defendant, respectively, in the name of the Defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, Eul No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Although the plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to the non-party company other than the defendant, the defendant prepared and delivered a loan agreement (Evidence 1) which is a disposal document to the plaintiff, and accordingly paid interest to the plaintiff, and Article 3 of the Notarial Deed (Evidence 1) entrusted by the plaintiff and the non-party company stated that "no interest exists."