beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff suffered losses after investing in futures options with the Defendant’s introduction, and the Defendant’s liability on July 3, 2015, “the loan certificate of this case” with the effect that “3,00,000 won and interest thereon KRW 500,000,000 per five months each month by December 31, 2015, shall be paid to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2015.”
A. The facts that have been drawn up by the parties are not disputed between them, or may be recognized by each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, as stated in the loan certificate of this case, which is a disposal document, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,00,000, interest KRW 373,972 (=3,00,000 x interest rate of KRW 25% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act x 25% per annum x 182/365 days from July 3, 2015 to December 31, 2015, and the amount of KRW 3,373,972 in total, and the amount of the instant payment order from April 11, 2018, on which the notice of this case was served to the defendant, and to pay damages for delay calculated annually from the date of the first instance judgment to August 22, 2018, which is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation.
(A) The plaintiff claimed interest of KRW 500,00,000. However, it is reasonable within the scope of the Interest Limitation Act and the remaining claims are without merit. (b)
The defendant's assertion did not borrow money from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff believed the defendant who was a member of a securities company and invested in the futures option, and made losses to the defendant, thereby threatening the defendant to prepare the certificate of the loan of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the above act of drawing up the loan of this case is revoked by the declaration of intention by coercion.
However, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant loan certificate was drafted by the Plaintiff’s coercion solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and 7.