편취금 등 반환
1. The defendant,
A. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 31,678,075 and its KRW 11,678,075,000,000,000 for money, from September 5, 2013 to 20.
1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including each number) as to the cause of the claim.
Plaintiff
A agreed to receive interest of 30% per month from the Defendant, and lent 20 million won on July 19, 2013, and 20 million won on September 10, 2013, respectively.
B. On July 31, 2013, Plaintiff B loaned KRW 10 million, and KRW 6 million on August 16, 2013, respectively, by means of remitting money to the Defendant from the head of Tong Dong-in, Dong-in, Dong-in, the Defendant.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the money calculated at the rate of 30% per annum, which is the limit of the Interest Limitation Act, among the principal of each loan, agreed interest, and delay damages.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant's assertion that the illegal consideration is illegal consideration for the same act of receiving money without delay is an investment made by the plaintiffs in collusion with the same recipient, and thus, the defendant defense to the effect that the defendant does not have a duty to return because the plaintiffs' loans are illegal consideration. Therefore, the above defense is without merit.
B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 3 million on August 2, 2013, KRW 3 million on August 19, 2013, KRW 3 million on August 19, 2013, KRW 3 million on September 4, 2013, KRW 1.5 million on August 14, 2013, KRW 1.5 million on August 30, 2013, KRW 900,000 on September 2, 2013, and KRW 90,000 on September 17, 2013, each of the above amounts should be appropriated as principal and interest, and that the Plaintiffs received the said money, and that the payment should be appropriated as the Defendant’s objection to the payment of interest calculated as the principal and interest rate of the interest rate of KRW 30,000 on September 17, 2013.
(However, the plaintiff A submitted an accounting formula while submitting a written modification. 3. Conclusion, the plaintiff A's claim is reasonable.