beta
Text
1. From July 9, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 30,000 to the Plaintiff and KRW 30,000 among the said money.
Reasons
In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff, the defendant, and C are co-ownership owners of 1390 square meters of D Forest land in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. The plaintiff, the defendant and the defendant provided the above land as collateral and borrowed KRW 90 million from Jung-gu Agricultural Cooperatives as debtor. The plaintiff, the defendant and C shall use each of their own 30 million won for the above loan amount, and the principal shall be repaid at the time of sale of the above land (if there is time limit, it shall be repaid individually), and interest shall be deposited in one-third loan passbook each, and the interest shall be deposited in one-third loan passbook. The defendant did not pay interest after October 2014, and it is recognized that the unpaid interest rate up to June 8, 2015 reaches KRW 3.3 million.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 90 million from Jung-gu Agricultural Cooperatives, and then lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant.
However, the defendant's non-performance of the obligation to pay interest is as seen earlier, and the defendant lost the benefit of time.
I would like to say.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 3,30,000 won (i.e., the loan principal of KRW 30 million until June 8, 2015) and the loan principal of KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from July 9, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not sell the above land at a price higher than the market price, and that the defendant's loan amounting to KRW 25 million against E should be offset by the claim under the agreement that the plaintiff would pay interest at a rate of 6% per annum, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument.