beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.08.17 2015가단42299

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 6,875,000 won and 5,000,000 won. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2249, Nov. 2, 2010>

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A loaned the Defendant at neighboring areas at an interest rate of KRW 18% per annum (payment on July 2, 2001 to KRW 300,000 per annum) and on July 2, 2003, the due date for repayment was determined and lent as February 26, 2008, and (3) lent KRW 250,000,000 on January 19, 2008 to the Defendant as the due date for repayment. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20317, Nov. 26, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20350, Feb. 26, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 21350, Jan. 19, 2009>

B. The Defendant paid interest from each of the above loans up to October 2010, but did not pay the remainder of the principal and interest.

C. A died on December 23, 2015 while the instant case was pending, and the Plaintiffs, their children, taken over the lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to each of the above loans amounting to 6,875,000 won (27,50,000 won x 1/4) equivalent to the plaintiffs' shares in inheritance among each of the above loans and (1) loans amounting to 5,000,000 won (20,000 won x 1/4) above x 18% per annum under the agreement from November 2, 2010 to the date of full payment (2) loans amounting to 1,875,000 won (2,50,000 won x 1/4) x 1/4 5% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of complaint of this case to November 9, 2015, and to pay damages for delay calculated by 5% per annum from the day of full payment as stipulated by the Civil Act. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26591, Nov. 2, 2015>

B. The defendant's assertion (1) is a defense that the defendant repaid each of the above loans over around 2007 and 2008. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above assertion only with the statement of evidence Nos. 6 and 7. The witness G's testimony is difficult to be easily believed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's defense of repayment is without merit.

(2) In addition, the Defendant’s borrowing of each of the above loans as a merchant operating its retail store is a commercial activity for raising funds for retail store operation, and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription is complete.