beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가합15868

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally with C for KRW 150,000,000 and KRW 100,000,000 among them to the plaintiff. < Amended by Act No. 7990, Nov. 6, 2006>

Reasons

1. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant, as a co-owner, may recognize the fact of borrowing KRW C, KRW 100 million from November 6, 2006 to December 11, 2006, KRW 10 million from November 6, 2006, and KRW 20 million from January 15, 2006 (hereinafter "the loan contract of this case"). < Amended by Act No. 8178, Dec. 15, 2006; Act No. 8178, Nov. 15, 2007>

Therefore, the defendant's intent to jointly and severally with C as the joint borrower of each of the loans of this case seems to be jointly and severally with C to bear the debt of each of the loans of this case.

As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 150 million and its KRW 100 million, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 2.5% per month from November 6, 2006 to the date of full payment, as to KRW 50 million, to the Plaintiff’s claim, 50 million per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from January 16, 2007 to May 6, 2015, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to September 30, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the same Act from the next day to the date of full payment.

As to the loan 2 of this case, the Plaintiff claimed payment of 20% interest rate per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case until the day of full payment. However, since the legal interest rate under the aforesaid Special Cases is 15% per annum from October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff’s claim for excess of this rate

① The evidence No. 1 (Evidence) states only C, but the Defendant, on April 13, 2007, made delegations with C and D Co., Ltd. to clarify the existence of the instant loan obligation.