logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.16 2018가단5113426
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 86,856,971 and KRW 77,472,90 among these amounts, from April 16, 2019 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant loaned 3 million won to himself and herself to pay the total of 3.6 million won per day on 36 million won per day.

Accordingly, during the period from November 7, 2017 to November 29, 2017, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 98,200,000 to the Defendant as shown in the attached Table loan column.

B. However, the amount repaid by the Defendant after the payment is the sum of KRW 39,660,000, as stated in the separate sheet payment column.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9 evidence, Eul 1 to 19 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The interest rate initially agreed upon by the Defendant is null and void in excess of the limited interest rate prescribed under the Interest Limitation Act. Thus, if the Defendant’s repayment amount is appropriated for the interest and principal calculated at the rate of 24% per annum, as shown in the attached Table, the remaining interest remaining as of April 15, 2019 is the total of 86,856,971 won (principal principal KRW 77,472,908).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 86,856,971 won and 77,472,908 won among them with 24% interest per annum from April 16, 2019 to the day of full payment.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant confirmed that the remaining principal and interest of December 7, 2017 was KRW 99,400,000, and that the Plaintiff agreed to pay interest of KRW 10% per month after recognizing the entire said money as principal. According to the evidence No. 5, the agreement is acknowledged, but the part which exceeds the interest rate set forth in the Interest Limitation Act is null and void, and even if the contractual interest holder concludes a quasi-loan loan agreement or a novation agreement with respect to the excess interest, the excess portion shall not take effect (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da17046, Oct. 13, 1998). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion corresponding thereto is null and void.

3. The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit.

arrow