beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.17 2015가합559559

대여금

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 464,50,000 and KRW 250,000 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant)’s payment of KRW 464,50,000 on September 10, 2015.

Reasons

1. The fact that common recognition is given to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim;

A. The Plaintiff is operating curios points with the trade name “D” in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant operates each curios point with the trade name “E”.

B. On May 9, 2011, the Plaintiff lent 250 million won (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Defendant at 1.8% per month interest (4.5 million won per month), and was handed over by the Defendant an ancient book with 28 points (21 points per month and 7 points per cent).

At the time, the Defendant borrowed KRW 28 million from the Plaintiff and paid interest of KRW 1.8% per month to the Plaintiff: Provided, That in the event of arrears with interest for five months, the Defendant promised to convert into automatic trade (No. 2; hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) to the instant agreement.

C. Since then, in addition to the above agreement, the Plaintiff was prepared with a loan certificate stating that the Defendant would lose the benefit of time (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) on the nine (9) day of each month of the interest payment and the due date on May 9, 2012 when the interest was overdue for at least five (5) months, separately from the above agreement.

On June 3, 2011, the Defendant received four points out of the above ancient 28 points from the Plaintiff through the Defendant’s IF, and delivered 10 points of curios as shown in the attached Table 1, such as the shape indicated in the attached Table 2, to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant wooden household”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. As to the principal claim

A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff sought payment of the principal and interest of the instant loan based on the loan certificate of this case. The Defendant delegated the sale of the said KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff, not the loan, at KRW 28,000,000, which was paid as a security deposit. According to the proviso of the instant agreement, if the Defendant delays interest on the said security deposit for five months, the sum of the said security deposit and overdue interest shall be the sales amount.