대여금
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 75 million and the amount therefrom from March 1, 2010 to the day of complete payment.
1. On September 20, 2004, the Defendants, who are the couple of basic facts, agreed to pay for the pertinent month from the Plaintiff until September 19, 2005 due date for repayment of KRW 100 million until September 19, 2005, but at least 3% of interest per month (hereinafter “the instant borrowed money”) are not in dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged by the statement in Gap evidence 1.
2. The Plaintiff and Defendant C’s assertion are the cause of the instant claim. Around the 20th day of each month, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendants, and received KRW 3 million interest per month and paid KRW 2.7 million per month after partial principal repayment. Meanwhile, since the amount the Plaintiff received as interest exceeds the interest limit rate under the Interest Limitation Act, if calculating the excess amount, only KRW 77,019,852 shall remain as principal, and thus, the Defendants seek payment of KRW 75 million and delay damages therefrom within the scope of the remainder.
As to this, Defendant C asserted to the effect that Defendant C paid not only KRW 3 million per month to the Plaintiff, but also KRW 3.3 million per month, and that Defendant C repaid all of the instant loan.
3. Determination
A. According to each of the evidence Nos. 3 through 7, No. 8-1, 2, and 9 as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the money deposited by Defendant B to the Plaintiff after borrowing the instant money.
1. The list is as shown in the list, and the five million won as of August 21, 2007 and five million won as of December 31, 2007, among them, shall be deemed to have been repaid to the principal of the borrowed amount in accordance with the plaintiff's assertion, and other attached documents.
1. The portion treated as sound in the list is determined as being paid by the Plaintiff as interest on the loan of this case or as being paid as interest on the loan of this case. The Plaintiff was not deducted as interest on July 1, 2008, but as interest on the loan of this case in light of the time and amount of payment.