beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,200,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 12, 2014 to April 2, 2015, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. By December 1, 2006, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 32,500,000, which is a total of KRW 5,500,000, to Dong Jae, six times by December 1, 2006, without fixing the due date for reimbursement, and paid KRW 27,000,000 at present (= KRW 32,50,000 - KRW 5,500,000).
B. C: (a) died on April 4, 2014; (b) the heir was the Defendant and son who is the spouse.
【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Evidence No. 1-2, A-2, A-2, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 16,200,000 won (=27,000,000 x 3/5 of the inheritance) and damages for delay.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from December 2, 2006, after the last lease date, but the Plaintiff and C did not set a separate due date for the instant loan. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s obligation of the instant loan is an obligation with no fixed due date and the obligor is liable for delay from the time of receiving a request for performance.
(Article 387(2) of the Civil Act. According to the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff sent to the defendant a certificate of content that he/she would repay the debt of the loan of this case to June 11, 2014. Thus, after receiving a claim for performance from the plaintiff, he/she is liable for delay of payment from June 12, 2014, which is the date following the last due date for which the grace period has been postponed. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for delay of payment is justified within the scope of the above recognition.
B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that C requested the plaintiff to purchase the apartment building in Daegu E No. 209-1 for purchase from the F who purchased the apartment building in Daegu Jung-gu E No. 209-1 for the purpose of preparing the secondary shop shop, and the plaintiff decided the purchase and then C remitted the purchase price already paid to F to C, but the defendant's assertion is based on the evidence Nos. 1 through 3.