beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 222,292,341 and the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum from December 8, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the argument, the plaintiff invested an amount equivalent to 500 million won in order to sell apartment and commercial buildings located in Chungcheongnamcheon-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and the defendant, on December 7, 2016, shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 130 million with interest of KRW 200 million at 6.5% on the principal and interest of KRW 200 million. On July 14, 2016, the plaintiff borrowed KRW 300 million and paid KRW 135 million with interest of KRW 30 million with KRW 45% on the principal and KRW 300 million with KRW 45 million on January 20, 2017. The repayment period shall be determined by dividing the loan agreement into KRW 10 million and KRW 250 million on February 25, 2017, and KRW 500 million on March 25, 2017.
B. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that a quasi-loan contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant by the agreement that 500 million won invested by the plaintiff in the defendant as the object of a loan for consumption in accordance with the preparation of the contract
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 500 million and the agreed interest thereon, to the extent that does not exceed the interest prescribed in the Interest Limitation Act, 24% per annum for the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 5,00,000 from the Defendant on December 2, 2016, KRW 80,000,000 on January 20, 2017, KRW 20,000 on February 10, 2017, KRW 30,000 on February 28, 2017, KRW 20,000 on March 28, 2017, KRW 20,000 on April 10, 200, KRW 50,000 on June 30, 2017, and KRW 30,000 on July 40, 2017, the Plaintiff did not dispute as above between the parties to the loan and the Plaintiff’s repayment of KRW 30,00,00 on July 40, 200, KRW 300 on the basis of the loan for consumption.
B. Therefore, the loan contract of this case in which the Defendant discharged KRW 345,000,000.