대여금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Basic Facts
From April 8, 2005 to September 4, 2007, the Plaintiff lent 23 times a sum of KRW 365 million to the Defendant by account transfer or delivery, as stated in the “Date of Appropriation of Claim 1” and “loan” column.
(hereinafter “instant loan 1”). On March 17, 2006, the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff the following loan certificates (hereinafter “the loan certificates of this case”): One million won per day from March 17, 2006 to September 17, 2006 (one-month period between six months) to pay the amount of KRW 3,000,000 per month from March 17, 2006 to September 17, 2006 to pay KRW 3,000 per month = 3,00,000 per month to pay KRW 10,000 per month. The main contents are as follows:
【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to set the due date for the loans No. 1 of this case as an average of six months and to receive interest of 25% to 50% per annum.
On March 17, 2006, the Plaintiff agreed on September 17, 2006 that the Defendant shall pay KRW 100 million to the Defendant in installments at KRW 2,00,000 per month, and that the interest shall be paid at KRW 5% per month.
Therefore, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 358,450,00 to the Plaintiff from October 9, 2005 to August 29, 2016 was preferentially appropriated for interest on each of the above loans. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 462,475,069 claimed by the Plaintiff out of the total sum of the principal and remaining interest on each of the above loans.
If the judgment document on the claim of March 17, 2006, which determined the principal and interest of the loan, was duly formed, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the disposition document.
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 11. 11.