beta
Text
The plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.
The defendant's 67,69,327 Won and 31,809,230 won among the plaintiff's 67,69,327 won.
Reasons
1. Judgment as to the main claim
A. A. The summary of the party’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 56,00,000 to the Defendant on September 30, 2013, on the premise that the Plaintiff paid interest equivalent to 10% per ten percent (10%) per ten (10) days, as well as KRW 56,00,000 until February 12, 2014. The Defendant received reimbursement from the Defendant of KRW 31,60,000 among them. On June 2, 2014, the Defendant reached KRW 56,00,000 with the principal amount, KRW 115,100,000 with interest, and France was unable to pay interest to the Plaintiff on June 2, 2014, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate (No. 1, hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with the maturity of KRW 600,000,000 with the maturity of 60,000.
As such, the defendant should pay the above KRW 60,000,000 and the delayed damages.
2) The Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff with the same content as the loan certificate of this case, and the above loan certificate is merely a form prepared upon the Plaintiff’s request for the purpose of receiving interest exceeding the limit under the Interest Limitation Act. B) Determination was made on or before June 2, 2014, which was the date on which the Plaintiff written the loan certificate of this case, and was set at a high interest rate (10% per annum, the interest rate of 365% per annum) on the loan of this case, and it was difficult to collect such high interest rate. Considering that the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant formally agreed to prepare the loan certificate of this case, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant was to prepare the loan certificate of this case cannot be acknowledged by adding all arguments as to the above loan certificate of this case to the purport of all pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff cannot seek reimbursement against the Defendant against the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit.
2. The amount that the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant during the period from September 30, 2013 to February 1, 2019, and the interest accrued therefrom based on the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.