beta
(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2016.09.29 2016가단2652

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 85,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 2, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. On December 14, 201, the Defendant: (a) borrowed a loan certificate to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall immediately return KRW 50,000,000 on December 14, 201; (b) borrowed KRW 10,000 from the Plaintiff on March 21, 2012; and (c) borrowed a loan certificate to the effect that “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff on March 21, 2012”; and (d) around May 2013, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3,50,000 each month from the Plaintiff on June 29, 2013; and (c) borrowed KRW 15,00,000 from the Plaintiff on June 29, 2013; and (d) repaid on April 21, 2014.

“The loan certificate was drawn up and issued to the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 2, 2016 to the date of delivery of the duplicate of the application for the instant payment order to the Defendant, with respect to the loans or the agreed amount of KRW 85,00,000 (=70,000,000 until May 29, 2013) and the amount equivalent to June 29, 2013 (15,000).

B. The Defendant’s assertion argues that the amount actually borrowed from the Plaintiff is limited to KRW 29,00,000, and that the loan certificate issued to the Plaintiff was written by coercion of the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to find that each of the loans (Evidence A1 to 4) prepared by the defendant was made by the plaintiff's coercion and invalid, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.