beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and KRW 15,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000 from August 12, 2014, and KRW 25,00,000.
Reasons
1. The Defendant, on June 8, 200, borrowed KRW 25,00,00 from C, the Plaintiff’s mother on June 8, 2009, and KRW 15,00,000 from the Plaintiff on December 6, 2010; and C, on August 18, 2014, transferred a loan claim of KRW 25,00,000 against the Defendant to the Plaintiff. The fact that the legal brief dated October 27, 2014, indicating the Plaintiff’s intent to notify the assignment of the said claim, was delivered to the Defendant on November 3, 2014 is either not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) evidence No. 1-2, No. 2, and 3; and (b) evidence No. C’s testimony as well as the overall purport of oral proceedings as a witness’s testimony.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 40,000 won (25,00,000 won + loan 15,000,000 won + loan 15,000,000) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from November 4, 2014 to July 7, 2015, which is the day following the day when the notice of assignment of claims is delivered to the defendant with respect to 25,00,000 won from August 12, 2014, which is the day when the notice of assignment of claims is delivered to the defendant.
2. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant: (a) borrowed the above KRW 40,00,00 from C and the Plaintiff during the process of being awarded a contract for the construction of two 16 dong 16 dong 16 dong dong dong 16 from Company E operated by the Plaintiff’s father; and (b) determined the loan due date as “til the completion and completion of the construction of new multi-household 1; and (c) as such, the loan due date was not yet due to the lack of complete sale of the above multi-household 1, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with; (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the repayment date was fixed as alleged above.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the above scope of recognition.