beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.31 2017가단5074845

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally set aside KRW 90,000,000 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s contribution thereto to Defendant B on May 2, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 20 million to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”); (b) the repayment date of September 30, 2016 was March 29, 2017; and (c) the interest was 5% per month; and (d) the payment date of October 5, 2016 was April 4, 2017; and (e) the interest was 5% per month; and (d) the repayment date of October 7, 2016 was 30,000 won as of April 6, 2017; and (e) the interest was 5% per month; and (e) the Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the respective loan obligations of the Defendant Company.

B. Thereafter, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 10 million out of the loan principal amounting to KRW 10 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts established prior to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day (the Defendant Company, May 13, 2017; the Defendant C, June 21, 2017) to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendants clearly notified the Plaintiff that the investment principal is not guaranteed at the time of the preparation of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. Also, in light of the terms of the agreement made between the Defendants and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not a loan but an investment loan. Therefore, the Defendants did not have a duty to return. 2) There is no evidence to prove that the Defendants notified the Plaintiff that the investment principal is not guaranteed, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants notified the Plaintiff that the investment principal is not guaranteed. In addition, the term “investment contract” instead of “loan” under the agreement made between the Defendants and the Plaintiff, “investors” instead of “loan”, “loan amount”, “investment amount” instead of “loan amount”, and “interest rate” instead of “interest rate.