대여금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 21,703,526 as well as KRW 20,00,000 among them, from November 24, 2015 to the day of full payment.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Fact 1) On October 25, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant enter into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with fixing the loan transaction agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on April 27, 2015, by setting as follows: (a) the lending limit of KRW 20,000,000; (b) the repayment date on October 27, 2015; (c) the interest rate of KRW 2.2% per annum of the three-month CD interest rate; and (d) the overdue interest rate of KRW 90,00 per annum from 90
(2) However, on November 23, 2015, the Defendant’s outstanding principal and interest amounting to KRW 21,560,926 ( principal amounting to KRW 20,000,560,926) as of November 23, 2015, as of November 23, 2015, because it did not repay loans under the loan agreement up to the limit of the repayment date.
3) Meanwhile, Article 4(1) of the General Terms and Conditions for Bank Credit Transactions, which approved that the Defendant applied at the time of the instant loan agreement, provides that “A debtor shall bear the expenses for the exercise or preservation (including provisional attachment or provisional disposition (including termination thereof) of bank claims or security rights against a debtor, a guarantor, or a person who has pledged his/her property to secure another’s obligation according to the nonperformance of obligation.” The Plaintiff disbursed KRW 142,600 as provisional attachment of claims against the Defendant. B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 21,703,526 (i.e., interest of KRW 20,560,000 (= interest of KRW 1,560,926) and interest of KRW 142,60 and interest of KRW 20,000 among the principal and interest of KRW 20,000,00 per annum from November 25, 2015.
2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion was for the operation of the instant loan agreement, but appears to have asserted that the said agreement should be held liable for the said company since the said company discontinued its business around August 2015.
However, the defendant's assertion alone is difficult to view that the defendant who is a party to the loan agreement of this case is exempted from liability.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim.