beta
Text
1. The plaintiff
A. Defendant B is KRW 66 million, and 6% per annum from September 1, 2016 to October 19, 2016, and 0% from the following day.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 5, 2016, Defendant B drafted a certificate of borrowing money (hereinafter “the first certificate”) with the effect that the Plaintiff would borrow the loan at interest rate of KRW 66 million per annum and August 31, 2016 as of the date of repayment and that the said loan will be paid in full on the repayment date.
B. The Plaintiff, for Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), paid monthly rent of KRW 7,895,00,000 to Defendant C’s head office, and the Defendant C drafted a cash loan certificate as of August 31, 2016 (hereinafter “the second loan certificate”) stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 7,895,00 per annum, interest rate of KRW 6% per annum, and repayment date as of August 31, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest rate of KRW 66 million, which is the loan or agreed deposit, in accordance with the contents of the first loan certificate of this case, and the interest rate of KRW 6 million from September 1, 2016 to October 19, 2016, which is the day following the date of repayment of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest rate of KRW 7,895,00 and the interest rate of KRW 6% per annum as from September 1, 2016, which is the day following the repayment date of the second loan certificate of this case, and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.