Supreme Court Decision 2008Du6875 ( October 12, 2009)

Seoul High Court 2007Nu22322 (208.04.02)

In order to be considered as the payment date under the agreement, the payment date must be specified specifically.

In order to regard the date of payment of interest as the "date of payment of interest under an agreement", the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the date of payment of interest income or by failing to make any specific mention that there was an agreement on the date of payment of interest.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff in total after the remand.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the detailed statement of the global income of KRW 866,605,480 against the plaintiff on February 13, 2006 and the portion exceeding KRW 59,125,480 among the dispositions of the global income.

The reasoning for the court’s reasoning on this case is as shown in the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the fact that even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff up to the trial, it is insufficient to acknowledge the existence of an agreement on the date of payment of interest of the loan for consumption in this case, and therefore, we accept it as it is.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and it is judged the same as the order to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal.