beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 350,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 15% from August 21, 2018 to May 31, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the plaintiff set the repayment period to the defendant two months after the date of borrowing, and recognized the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the defendant on May 30, 2007, ② KRW 50 million on the same day, ③ KRW 100 million on March 4, 2008, respectively.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay interest calculated at each rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) from August 21, 2018 to May 31, 2019, following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff, to pay the Plaintiff interest calculated at the rate of 350 million won (200 million won) and 15% per annum as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) from the next day to the day of full payment.
(The legal interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings is 12% per annum from June 1, 2019, and thus, the part of the claim for interest in arrears seeking payment exceeding the rate of 12% per annum from June 1, 2019 is rejected). 2. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion, etc.
A. 1) As to the assertion that the Defendant was an investment that was not a loan, the Defendant asserts that the distribution of profits is not an investment that was made by the Plaintiff, but an implied thought of the distribution of profits and that it was an investment that was made. 2) However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant had been invested in the money.
Rather, according to the evidence No. 5 and No. 1, it is recognized only that the Defendant prepared and delivered a loan certificate with the purport that it borrowed money to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant considered that it was a loan to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant considered that it was a loan to a financial transaction with the Plaintiff and prepared a “a detailed statement sheet for repayment of the loan”.