beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 433,513,300 and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from March 26, 2014 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On June 28, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 970,00,00 to the Defendant on June 28, 2011 at the maturity rate of KRW 8.7% per annum and interest rate of KRW 20% per annum (change rate). In the event that the Defendant fails to pay the amount on the interest payment date, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the amount to be paid. On March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to pay damages for delay for the balance of the loan from the time when the Defendant fails to pay the obligation on the expiration date or when he/she loses the benefit under the terms and conditions even during the agreed period. (2) On March 24, 2014, the Plaintiff received KRW 535,563,267 from the auction case of the real estate in Changwon District Court, Changwon Branch Branch Branch Branch, to appropriate the principal by distribution, etc.
3) In addition to the principal appropriated as above, the Defendant did not pay interest and principal on the loan, and lost the benefit of time from March 25, 2014. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder principal of the loan amounting to KRW 433,513,300, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum, which is the overdue damages rate from March 26, 2014 to the date of full payment, following the Defendant’s forfeiture of the benefit of time.
2. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant argued that C, which was the representative director of the defendant, was granted a loan by deceiving the defendant's officers and shareholders at the time of the defendant (which seems to have claimed abuse of representative authority, but its purport is not clear), but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
The defendant's above assertion is groundless.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.