beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall complete the payment of KRW 30,022,449 and KRW 29,583,561 among them from February 22, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 5, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000,00 to Defendant B, KRW 12,000,000 each month, and KRW 5,000,000 on August 14, 2016, and KRW 15,000 on August 15, 2016, and KRW 10,000,000 on September 2, 2016.
Defendant B repaid to the Plaintiff the amount indicated in the column for payment on the date indicated in the attached Table 1. The date indicated in the table.
The Plaintiff deemed that interest accrued from September 2, 2016, which was the date of the final loan (not including the first day), and filed the instant claim after applying the restriction rate of interest under the Interest Limitation Act to the appropriation of performance by 25%.
B. Around August 2016, upon Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 15,000,000 to Defendant C with the principal and interest of KRW 15,000 on August 5, 2016 and to repay KRW 18,00,000 per day from August 6, 2016 to December 3, 2016.
Defendant C repaid to the Plaintiff the amount entered in the repayment column on the date stated in the attached Table 2. The repayment date.
The Plaintiff filed the instant claim after applying the restriction rate of the Interest Limitation Act to the rate of 25%, and subsequently making the instant claim.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the plaintiff's claim, the defendants are obligated to pay to the plaintiff the principal and interest remaining after the discharge of the claim.
However, in the case of loans to Defendant B, the Plaintiff calculated the amount claimed by calculating the principal and interest by including the interest accrued to the principal. However, it cannot be deemed that there was a welfare agreement, and it is deemed that there was an interest only for the principal.
B. As to the Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B merely delivered a loan between the Plaintiff and C, and did not borrow money from the Plaintiff. However, according to the evidence examined earlier, the Plaintiff is not a direct son, but a loan to Defendant C is a lending to Defendant B or Defendant B with respect to the use of Defendant C’s account.