beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가단5172736

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 112,593,738 as well as KRW 106,015,00 among them, from June 12, 2019 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 8, 2017, the Defendant loaned KRW 106,015,00 to the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 7.5% per annum, 22.5% per annum, and 22.5% per annum, and the due date on November 8, 2018.

As of June 11, 2019, the Defendant has delayed the payment of the principal and interest after the maturity date and remaining the liability of KRW 112,593,738 in total, including 106,015,00 won and 6,578,738 won and interest accrued to the attempted principal and interest.

B. E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) is an executor of the business of newly constructing and selling Griart located in the F of the race-si (hereinafter “E”), and the Plaintiff is a bank that carried out part payment loans to the buyers of the instant Lriart, including the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 10.5% per annum to the Plaintiff within the maximum agreed delay interest rate of KRW 112,593,738 of the principal and interest of the loan and KRW 106,015,00 of the principal from June 12, 2016 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion 1 as to the defendant's assertion, Eul concluded a sales contract with the buyer of the defendant et al., that the intermediate payment loan is lifelongly non-interest, and that the return on investment in KRW 1,200,000 per month was made. All of these advertisements were false. The defendant asserted to the purport that the plaintiff's request cannot be complied with because there are various problems in the sale and use of the set of this case, such as the duty of inspection prior to approval for use under the Building Act, the duty of electrical safety inspection, etc., and the disposition of approval for use, etc.

However, the above argument by the defendant is related to the act of E or racing, and it is not a content that can claim the plaintiff's loan claim, which is only a financial institution that extended part payment to the buyer.

In addition, according to the above, the defendant.

참조조문