beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40,000,000, and 5% per annum from January 15, 2019 to September 25, 2019, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff on November 25, 2016, when comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 (the facts based on the seals of the Defendant, and the following seals of the Defendant’s name, are presumed to have been established as a whole, since there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts based on the seals of the Defendant) and Nos. 2 and 3.
Interest shall be KRW 50,000 per month, and the loan period shall be from November 25, 2016 to the repayment.
“A certificate of borrowing was drawn up and issued, and the Plaintiff is recognized to have remitted KRW 40 million to the Defendant on the same day.
According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant without fixing the period, and it is evident that the duplicate of the complaint of this case to the effect that the Plaintiff seeking the return of the above loan reaches the Defendant on January 14, 2019. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from January 15, 2019 to September 25, 2019, the date of this decision, when it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff 40 million and from January 15, 2019, until September 25, 2019, and from the next day to the date of full payment.
The Plaintiff filed a claim for the repayment of the loan from October 25, 2017 to October 25, 2017 by asserting that the Defendant delayed interest from around October 25, 2017, and that he claimed the return of the loan, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff claimed the return of the loan before the delivery date of the copy of the complaint only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 98 and the proviso of Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.