beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 180,102,137 as well as KRW 150,000 among them, from September 18, 2015 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 22, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 150 million (hereinafter “instant loan 1”) to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) at the maturity of payment on December 31, 2012, at the rate of KRW 6.5% per annum and KRW 20% per annum, and the Defendant, the representative director of B, guaranteed the Plaintiff’s debt 1 of this case.
B. On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) on August 28, 2013, leased KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant loans”); (b) on August 27, 2014, the due date for repayment was set at KRW 9.2% per annum; and (c) on KRW 20% per annum.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to extend the repayment period of the instant loan 1 until December 31, 2014, and the repayment period of the instant loan 2 until August 27, 2015.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest rate of KRW 150 million for the instant loan 1,50 million and the agreed interest rate of KRW 6.5% per annum from June 22, 2012 to December 31, 2014, and the agreed interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant exempted the interest or delay damages from the interest or delay damages, except for the remainder of KRW 17,951,540, which is the sum agreed upon as to the loans 1 and 2 of this case (hereinafter "each of the loans of this case") in B.
According to the evidence No. 6-1 through No. 4, the Plaintiff proposed on June 15, 2016 that, with respect to the repayment of each of the instant loans, “17,951,540 won as agreed upon from January 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015,” and that, “B, with respect to the installment payment of each of the instant loans, shall be deemed to have been repaid to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2015.”
However, in full view of the purport of evidence No. 6-2, the plaintiff and Eul, even if so, are the same.