beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 50,000,000 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from April 22, 2016 to July 19, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. If the Defendants alleged as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim leased KRW 50,000,000, the Defendants completed the construction of a new building on the D ground in Gyeongcheon-si, Gyeongcheon-si until December 31, 2015, and would make two of them a payment in kind. As such, the Plaintiff entered into a payment in substitutes agreement and lent KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendants, but the Defendants did not comply with the said agreement.
Since Defendants, without intent or ability to repay, borrow money from the Plaintiff, they are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 50,000,000 won as damages for tort or in repayment of borrowed money, and 5% per annum from January 1, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendants, which judged the claim for damages, obtained a false representation of KRW 50,000 by making a repayment of borrowed money or a false statement to the Plaintiff without intent or ability to act in kind, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the claim.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about the claim for damages caused by tort is without merit.
3. Determination on the claim for repayment of borrowed money
A. Although Defendant C agreed to provide payment in kind in favor of the Plaintiff and borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff, the failure to pay the amount is recognized without dispute between the parties.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the due date was agreed on December 31, 2015, and thus, the part on damages for delay claimed at the rate of 5% per annum from January 1, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case is without merit.
Therefore, from April 22, 2016, Defendant C, which was obvious on the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, is reasonable to have a dispute as to the scope of the obligation of this case performed by the said Defendant.