beta
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.09.02 2015가단221605

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,000,000,000, among the above amounts, to the Plaintiff from November 7, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 201, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant to lend funds necessary to take over the right to operate the water play facilities of the bathing beach.

B. The plaintiff annually

7. From to August 201, 201, the Defendant was paid KRW 10,00,000 as interest and KRW 20,000 on October 10, 201, and KRW 10,000,000 on October 27, 201, and KRW 10,000,000 on October 27, 201, and KRW 20,000 on June 12, 2012, and KRW 20,000,000 on June 20, 2012, including KRW 10,000,000 on July 9, 2012, and KRW 90,000 on July 10, 200 (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 10,00,000 as interest on the instant loan, and KRW 10,000,000 on July 13, 2013, and KRW 15,00,00 on July 15, 2014, respectively, but did not pay the interest on the instant loan from August 4, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant’s loan obligations against the Plaintiff are obligations without fixed time, and the Defendant is liable for delay from the day following the date on which the Defendant received a request from the Plaintiff for the repayment of the instant loan from the Plaintiff, i.e., the Defendant is liable for delay from the day after the date on which the duplicate of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as to KRW 100,000,000 among the loan’s total amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 and the above amount of KRW 90,000,000,000, which is the day following the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, from November 7, 2015 to the day of full payment.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged that the instant loan was invested in the Defendant, and that the amount of KRW 10,000,000 that was paid to the Plaintiff each year from 2012 to 2014 was the revenue from the said investment, but it is insufficient to recognize the instant loan solely with the evidence No. 1, and otherwise, evidence to acknowledge it.