beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 46,017,00 and interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from July 15, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 11, 2005, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 80,000,00 to the Defendant on July 11, 2005, under a joint and several surety between C and D, 3% of interest per month, and the due date on January 11, 2006.
B. While lending as above, the Plaintiff paid 7,600,000 won remaining after deducting 2,400,000 interest from the Defendant.
C. The Defendant repaid the sum of KRW 125,300,000 from that time to March 23, 2009.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The principal and interest calculated on March 23, 2009 [the principal amount of KRW 77,60,000 on the basis of March 23, 2009] 】 [one year and 354/365] 】 [the period from July 11, 2005 to June 29, 2007] 】 36% per annum 】 [77,60,000 won 】 [1 year and 267/365 days (=from June 30, 2007 to March 23, 2009)] 】 (the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act from June 30, 2007 to June 30, 2007] 】 30% per annum
(b) As of March 23, 2009: 172,939,572 won for principal and interest calculated on the remainder of principal as of March 23, 2009; 125,300,000 won for repayment = 47,639,572 won for payment.
C. As the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant’s maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act from July 15, 2014 to the date of full payment with respect to KRW 46,017,00 to the Plaintiff, is 25% per annum from July 15, 2014.
(d) is liable to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of such agreement.
The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant's assertion 3 is the actual debtor against the plaintiff, and the defendant merely lent the name in lending money to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted. 2) The statement in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4 is that Eul borrowed money from the plaintiff. It is difficult to recognize that the defendant lent the name of the defendant in lending money from the plaintiff. Even if it is acknowledged, the defendant's assertion is not the debtor in relation with the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.