대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,349,055 and KRW 35,044,50 among them, 24% per annum from April 25, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. The Plaintiff, on August 25, 2014, without dispute between the parties or comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, may recognize that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 48,450,00 remaining after deducting KRW 1,50,000 from the interest rate of KRW 20,00 on November 26, 2014, KRW 50,000, KRW 450 on a prior 48,450 on a deposit basis. The Plaintiff voluntarily recognized the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 30,50 on March 19, 2015, KRW 40, KRW 25,000 on April 24, 2015 x KRW 46, KRW 405 on a deposit basis of KRW 25,00 on a deposit basis of KRW 46,50 on a deposit basis of KRW 20,50 on a deposit basis of interest rate of KRW 479,500 on March 19, 205
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the principal and interest on the loan (35,044,509 won) and damages for delay calculated by 24% per annum from April 25, 2015 to the date of full payment.
2. Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s agent C paid the Plaintiff’s KRW 15 million on August 25, 2014, and KRW 2 million on March 24, 2015. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence, and in particular, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 15 million on August 25, 2014 is repaid to the Plaintiff through the Plaintiff’s agent C on the date of borrowing. Considering the fact that it is difficult to easily obtain payment based on the empirical rule, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff.