beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.10.10 2014가합1181

약정금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 130,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 19, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, the plaintiff extended loans to B on June 27, 2012 at the interest rate of 7.6% per annum and due date of repayment of KRW 130 million per annum on January 17, 2014, and the same year.

7.5. The fact that the above loan was paid to B; B, on December 13, 2011, leased deposit amounting to KRW 250 million from the Defendant; the term of lease from January 17, 2012 to January 17, 2014; and (a) leased D apartment 102 and 603, which is located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si; and around that time, the above lease deposit was paid to the Defendant; and (b) the Plaintiff entered into a pledge contract with B with respect to KRW 250 million against the Defendant of Dong on June 27, 2012 regarding the maximum amount of the security deposit to be refunded; and on July 3, 2012, the Defendant drafted a letter of consent to the repayment of the deposit and a letter of promise to return the deposit to the said Plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s repayment period for the Plaintiff’s loan claim against B arrives. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, a pledgee, the amount of KRW 130 million with respect to the Plaintiff’s loan principal of KRW 130 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 19, 2014 to the date of delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, which is obviously the next day of the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that at the time of accepting the above pledge right, the plaintiff is not liable to the defendant at the time of accepting the above pledge right, and it is merely a formal act, and the defendant merely signed the above document to the plaintiff by simply confirming the existence of the claim for return of the lease deposit in B. However, according to the evidence No. 9, the defendant agreed to return the lease deposit directly to the plaintiff upon accepting the above pledge right between the plaintiff and the plaintiff.