대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 18,750,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 23, 2015 to the date of full payment.
The Defendant: (1) The Defendant: (a) the loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 3 million on March 2, 2006 with the maturity date specified on April 2, 2006; (b) the loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million on March 9, 2006 with the maturity date specified on March 11, 2008; (c) the loan certificate stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 3 million on March 13, 2006 with the maturity date specified on June 13, 2006; and (d) the Defendant borrowed KRW 2 million on May 22, 2006 with the maturity date specified on July 25, 2006; or (d) the Defendant did not dispute between the parties to the loan certificate and the overall purport of the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4-1, respectively; or (d) the purport of the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4-1, respectively.
On the other hand, with respect to the lease contract for a multi-unit building operated by the Defendant around June 2006, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff, who was paid KRW 750,000 from the Defendant, and ② as to the lease contract for a multi-unit building operated by the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiff, the remainder of the lease deposit returned by the said lessor on behalf of the Plaintiff was appropriated in the
Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 23, 2015 to the date following the delivery date of the copy of the application for the instant payment order, which is the following day of the delivery of the copy of the application for the instant payment order, to the date of full payment.
As to this, the defendant alleged to the effect that he repaid all the principal and interest of the above loan to the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's above assertion is without merit
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.