beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 16, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. On May 23, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from Nonparty C on March 30, 2006 to repay the loan up to May 30, 2012, which is notarized with respect to a monetary loan agreement for consumption. The Defendant agreed to transfer the loan to the Defendant under this agreement to the Plaintiff around June 2015, and the Plaintiff sent the notice regarding the assignment of the claim to the Plaintiff as of July 5, 2017 and the notice was delivered to D presumed to be the Defendant’s mother on July 7, 2017 is recognized in accordance with the purport of the statement in subparagraphs 1 through 4 and the entire pleadings.
2. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 16, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, as claimed by the Plaintiff, as the payment date under the monetary loan loan contract between the Defendant and C, to the Plaintiff.
3. As to this, the defendant acknowledged in the oral argument that it was prepared in relation to the monetary loan agreement with the non-party C, but the fact was stated that it was made not by a genuine loan for consumption, but by any other reason.
This argument is likely to be interpreted as null and void in the monetary loan contract.
If the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text of the disposal document, except in extenuating circumstances. However, even in such cases, if clear and acceptable evidence exists to deny the contents of the statement, the probative value may be dismissed if there exists a reasonable ground to deem the contents of the document as contrary to the objective truth.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67264, 67271, May 13, 2005). We examine the case, and the Defendant Nonparty.