beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 374,725,712 as well as 10% per annum from September 18, 2010 to December 31, 2010 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 7, 2007, the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 500,000,000 to the Defendant on August 7, 2007 at the maturity of payment on August 7, 2009 and at the rate of 20% per annum.
B. The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 on November 2, 2009, KRW 100,000,000 on November 30, 2009, KRW 97,000,000 on June 22, 2010, KRW 90,000 on August 31, 2010, and KRW 90,000,00 on September 13, 2010, respectively.
C. Around December 2009, the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request on a reduction of the annual interest rate of 2010 to 10%.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2-6 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the interest and the principal part of the principal until September 17, 2010, such as the details stated in the attached Table of Appropriation of Performance. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the principal amount remaining after the plaintiff and delay damages.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the agreement on the application of interest rate of 10% per annum in 2010 was null and void because the Defendant did not immediately repay the loan, but it is insufficient to deem that the agreement on reduction of interest rate was made on the condition of prompt repayment only with the statement in the evidence No. 3 and No. 5. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that there was an implied agreement to cover all the amounts repaid by the defendant to the principal, but it is difficult to recognize only the statement of Eul No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 374,725,712 as well as damages for delay at each rate of 10% per annum from September 18, 2010 to December 31, 2010, which is the day following the date on which the Defendant was fully paid to the Plaintiff, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.