beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 9, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 84.14 square meters of reinforced concrete structure of 27th floor E-building in Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Defendant B is the father of Defendant D and Defendant C’s spouse who is Defendant D’s spouse.
B. On November 18, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to lend a loan of KRW 300,000,000 to Defendant B with a business fund, with the payment date on November 17, 2013; the interest rate of KRW 1.3% per month; and the interest rate of KRW 1.3% per month; and on the 17th day of each month, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to lend a loan of KRW 300,000,000. The Defendant B, on the same day, set up a certificate of borrowing the above content (However, only 1.3% per interest) on the same day, to the Plaintiff.
C. On November 18, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) consisting of KRW 312,00,000 with respect to the instant real estate, Defendant C, a mortgagee, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the maximum debt amount of KRW 312,00,000, and had the Defendant C deliver KRW 260,000 loaned from G to Defendant B. The Plaintiff issued the check of KRW 40,000 at face value to Defendant B.
From December 21, 2010 to June 18, 2014, Defendant B deposited approximately KRW 3,90,000,000 (averagely, KRW 2,700,00 per month) which is less than KRW 1,344,00 per month as interest stated in the loan certificate of this case with the Plaintiff’s account.
E. From November 18, 2010, Defendant D, as a joint and several surety for Defendant B’s debt amounting to KRW 300,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant D prepared a payment memorandum stating that “Defendant B, who borrowed from the Plaintiff on November 18, 2010, promised to pay KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff by January 31, 2015” (hereinafter “instant payment memorandum”).
F. On the other hand, D.C.
In this case, the right to collateral security of this case, which has been completed in the real estate of this case, is still still still not effective until now.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 3, and .