beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from August 20, 2014 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) determined the loan of KRW 238,00,000 to the Defendant as a general loan; (b) determined the contractual interest rate of KRW 5.2% per annum; (c) overdue interest rate of KRW 8% per annum; and (d) June 9, 2017; (b) the Defendant delayed the repayment of the interest on the loan from July 11, 2014; and (c) pursuant to Article 7(2) Subparag. 1 of the Plaintiff’s Framework Agreement on Credit Transactions applied at the time of the instant loan, the Plaintiff’s interest shall be lost when the obligor delayed the payment of interest for one consecutive month from the time when the obligor is obligated to pay interest, etc.
[Identification Evidence] Evidence Nos. 6 through 9, Evidence No. 10-1 to 4, Evidence No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 20, 2014 to the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, which is the day of complete payment, to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff’s claim of KRW 100 million out of the instant loan and after the day of loss of the benefit of time.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. When B, who was aware of the Defendant’s argument, intends to obtain a loan from the Defendant and purchase real estate, the interest, etc. would be responsible for and repaid by C, etc., and the Defendant would have received the instant loan from the Plaintiff in his own name.
Therefore, the defendant got the loan in this case due to the mistake caused by the deception C and B, and the plaintiff was merely a regular loan solicitor under the regulations of the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation. In implementing the loan, the employee in charge does not directly confirm whether the tenant is the tenant in the apartment for the purpose of security, and the documents required for the loan are not sufficient, and thus violated the duty of care in the course of the loan.