beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff prepared and delivered to the Defendant on May 20, 2009 a loan certificate stating the maturity date on December 30, 2010, the principal amount of which is KRW 26 million (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). The Defendant may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the total amount of KRW 9 million from April 3, 2013 to August 1, 2014 to the Plaintiff as the repayment of the principal stated in the above loan certificate.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from February 9, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order sought by the Plaintiff.
2. The judgment of the defendant's assertion is included in the loan certificate of this case on the ground that the loan certificate of this case was made by confinement, assault, and intimidation against the plaintiff, while the plaintiff was lent to the persons gambling in the second floor of the building in which the defendant's clothes under the loan certificate of this case operated by the defendant. The loan certificate of this case was made by confinement, assault, and intimidation against the defendant. The defendant asserted that the plaintiff had again drawn up the loan certificate of this case on February 14, 2012, including the principal under the loan certificate of this case, with the loan certificate of this case as KRW 30 million on the loan certificate of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion.
(3) The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for the payment of KRW 30 million against the defendant is significant in this court. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above KRW 30 million overlaps with the principal of the loan of this case). 3. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed.