beta
(영문) 청주지방법원제천지원 2016.06.16 2015가단3804

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 174,981,771 as well as KRW 2,445,110 among them, from November 20, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff leased KRW 250,000,00 to the Defendant on June 15, 2011 at the due date for reimbursement of KRW 21% on June 15, 2014, with the interest rate fluctuation rate and delay penalty rate of KRW 21%.

(hereinafter “instant loan 1”). (b)

On August 16, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 380,000,00 to the Defendant on August 16, 2012 at the maturity of payment on August 16, 2015, at the rate of KRW 2.3% of the fixed deposit interest rate, and at the rate of delay penalty 21%.

(hereinafter “Loan No. 2 of this case”)

As of October 26, 2015, the loan No. 1 of this case remains in KRW 2,643,430, and the loan No. 2 of this case remains in KRW 2,445,110 and interest 169,893,231.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts acknowledged in the above 1.1. judgment as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at a rate of 21% per annum from November 20, 2015 following the date following the last day of calculating the interest on the remainder of the loans of KRW 2,445,110 to KRW 2,45,893,231) and the remainder of the principal of the loans of KRW 2,445,110 among the loans of KRW 1,643,430 to the day of full payment.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not own ownership, and lent the name due to the inevitable circumstances of the construction company, and the company signed to believe that the company immediately sold goods or sold a pent site and promptly repaid the pent site, which led to this situation, and the company delayed interest due to the delay in the use of the loan by the company, the Plaintiff also contacted with the employees of the construction company, the company’s representative, or the private placement thickness, and thus, the Defendant did not bear the obligation of loans No. 1 and No. 2.

In general, the parties to the contract.