beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,564,383 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from August 13, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant around March 26, 201, and the repayment period is the same year.
6. 26. 26. It can be acknowledged that the Defendant agreed to pay the principal and interest of KRW 40,000,000 with interest added. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefor, as sought by the Plaintiff.
2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant's defense was proved to have paid the above loan, the defendant's transfer of KRW 30,000,000 to the plaintiff on July 7, 201 can be acknowledged according to the evidence No. 1.
Meanwhile, according to Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 8322 of March 29, 2007) and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act, the maximum interest rate under a contract for lending and borrowing money from June 30, 2007 is limited to 30% per annum, and the contractual interest rate exceeds the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act is null and void.
In light of these legal principles, 30,000,000 won that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is first appropriated to interest 2,564,383 won up to the date of repayment under Articles 477 and 479 of the Civil Act (i.e., 30,000,000 won per annum x 30% per annum x 104/365, and less than won per annum) and the remainder of 27,435,617 won is appropriated for the repayment of principal and eventually, the loan of this case remains within the scope of 2,564,383 won.
The defendant's defense is justified within the scope of the above recognition.
3. If so, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of 2,564,383 won of the loan and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 13, 2015 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.