대여금
1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000 and its KRW 200,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000 from May 26, 2011.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 20, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 150 million to the Defendant on May 20, 201, and KRW 200 million on May 25, 2010, and agreed on May 25, 2011 on the period of repayment for that loan. On January 31, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million, KRW 100 million on February 7, 201, and agreed on February 6, 2012.
B. The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million on June 201, KRW 20 million on August 201, 201, KRW 20 million on or around September 201, KRW 50 million on or around September 2012, and KRW 150 million on or around October 5, 2012.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 650 million and delay damages for the loans, except in extenuating circumstances.
However, the Plaintiff is a person who received KRW 150 million from the Defendant from the Defendant and received KRW 150 million from the Defendant as the repayment of the loan on May 20, 2010, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 50 million per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from May 26, 201, the following day of the due date for repayment for the remaining loans and KRW 200 million from May 25, 2010, and for the remaining loans, KRW 300 million from February 7, 2012 to February 2, 2015, the date following the due date for repayment for each of the instant loans, and KRW 50 million per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the date of full payment.
3. The defendant's defense was asserted that the plaintiff received additional repayment of KRW 30,973,660 out of the remaining KRW 500,000,00,000, out of the remaining loan 500,000, after selling the hospital owned by the defendant to a third party. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the defendant's defense
4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.