207 Gohap 5031 Loans

A

Attorney X-hwan et al.

1. B

2. C.

3. D;

Defendants Law Firm Y

Attorney Z.

April 3, 2008

April 24, 2008

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 400,000,000 won with 24% interest per annum from August 5, 2006 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

On January 4, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 400,000,00 to Defendant B with the maturity of repayment at the rate of 2% per month on June 4, 2006, and Defendant C and D jointly guaranteed the above loan obligations.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Assertion and determination

According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff interest and delay damages at the rate of 24% per annum from August 5, 2006 to the date of full payment, which is agreed upon by the plaintiff, from August 5, 2006 to the date of full payment.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the amount actually borrowed is KRW 346,00,000,000, as the above loan was deducted from the three-month interest rate of KRW 24,000,000.

In the process of the above loan, the payment of the remaining 376,00,000 won to the defendant by paying 24,000,000 won with a three-month interest rate of 400,000 won for the loan during the above loan is without dispute between the parties. The above prior interest payment agreement is in violation of the mandatory law or becomes null and void in violation of good morals and other social order.

Unless there are special circumstances, the above assertion is valid in light of the principle of private autonomy, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the defendant paid the plaintiff the introduction fee claimed by the defendant only based on the fact-finding results with respect to the Gyeongnam Bank, Korea Bank, Japan Bank, Busan Bank, and the National Bank, etc. In conclusion, the defendant's above assertion that the principal of the loan is KRW 346,00,000 is not accepted (the defendant also paid the loan amounting to KRW 400,000,000, interest rate of KRW 8,000,000 calculated on April 5, 2006, which was 200 per month after the payment period).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge, respondent

Judges Kim Jae-young

Judges Shin Jae-hwan