beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 581,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 5, 2010 to April 3, 2017.
Reasons
1. Claim against the defendant B
A. The fact that the plaintiff paid money to the defendant B as stated below and lent a total of KRW 580,1500,000 to the defendant B is not recognized by the evidence No. 1 or there is no dispute between the parties.
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 581,500,000 from November 5, 2010 (no dispute between the parties as to the period of repayment of the above loan claim and the period of calculation of damages for delay) to the Plaintiff at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 3, 2017, which is the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and the interest on delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the
(이하, 위와 같이 인정된 대여금을 ‘이 사건 대여금’이라 한다). 순번 일자 금액 순번 일자 금액 1 2007. 12. 14. 30,000,000 14 2008. 9. 5. 5,000,000 2 2007. 12. 20. 45,500,000 15 2008. 9. 8. 13,200,000 3 2008. 3. 7. 10,000,000 16 2008. 9. 8. 1,800,000 4 2008. 3. 7. 20,000,000 17 2008. 9. 18. 20,000,000 5 2008. 3. 12. 40,000,000 18 2008. 9. 22. 10,000,000 6 2008. 3. 12. 30,000,000 19 2008. 10. 29. 10,000,000 7 2008. 3. 28. 10,000,000 20 2009. 2. 19. 10,000,000 8 2008. 3. 31. 55,000,000 21 2009. 5. 15. 20,000,000 9 2008. 3. 31. 29,573,811 22 2008. 3.경 ~ 2009. 5. 15.경 20,000,000 10 2008. 3. 31. 5,042,740 23 2010. 1. 6. 50,000,000 11 2008. 3. 31. 383,449 24 2010. 1. 6. 20,000,000 12 2008. 4. 28. 20,000,000 25 2010. 1. 27. 21,000,000 13 2008. 4. 30. 70,000,000 26 2010. 11. 4. 15,000,000 합계 581,500,000
B. As to Defendant B’s defense, Defendant B asserted that the instant loan was borrowed for the tourist hotel construction business of Defendant B and constitutes a commercial obligation, and that the five-year extinctive prescription has expired.
As to this, the plaintiff is merely deceiving the plaintiff as if the defendant B did not actually carry out the business.