대여금
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the payment of demand procedure costs shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant shall make the plaintiff 24,782.
1. The plaintiff sought payment of 64,900 won to the defendant as the expenses for the demand procedure in this case. However, in the case where the demand procedure was implemented as the procedure, the expenses for the demand procedure are included in the expenses for the lawsuit, and the expenses for the lawsuit can be repaid through the procedure for confirmation of the amount of the lawsuit costs, and there is no benefit to bring a lawsuit separately (Supreme Court Decision 99Da68577 delivered on May 12, 200), and this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the plaintiff loaned interest of KRW 10,000,000 to the defendant before January 2009, before August 23, 201, after deducting KRW 2,00,000 from KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant on April 15, 201, and November 27, 2013; on February 5, 2014, the plaintiff set and lent KRW 50,000 to the defendant on December 30 of the same year as the maturity date, and 36% interest rate per annum. The fact that the plaintiff loaned KRW 50,00 to the defendant on December 30 of the same year, after deducting KRW 2,00,00,00 to the loan of KRW 50,000,00 to the defendant, and the fact that the majority of the above money transactions had been other than the above money transactions among the defendant.
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s total amount of loans extended five times to the Defendant is KRW 90,00,000, or the interest paid by the Plaintiff in excess of the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act is KRW 24,782,913 as of August 5, 2014. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, from August 6, 2014 to the day following the date of calculating the final interest.
3. Conclusion, the part of the instant lawsuit’s claim for the expenses of demand procedure is unlawful, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim is reasonable within the scope recognized in paragraph (2).