beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 35,362,751 and KRW 35,031,921 among them, per annum from June 2, 2018 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 19, 2017, the Defendant purchased the NAS vehicle using the Plaintiff’s secondhand loan products (secondhand loan loan), and the main contents of the loan agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at that time are as follows.
Loan amount: 48,00,000 loan period: 14.4% per annum on a 48-month interest rate, 26.4% per annum on an overdue interest rate.
B. On May 19, 2017, the Defendant prepared a certificate of vehicle real property and a certificate of vehicle acquisition with respect to the NAS vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) acquired in accordance with the instant loan agreement, and completed the transfer of ownership registration in the name of the Defendant on May 22, 2017.
C. The Defendant, upon repayment of the above loans, lost the benefit of time due to the Defendant’s failure to repay the principal and interest. As of June 1, 2018, the Defendant’s debt amount as of June 1, 2018 is the principal amount of KRW 35,031,921, interest KRW 327,228, interest for delay damages, KRW 3,602, and KRW 35,362,751.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed delay damages calculated at the rate of 26.4% per annum from June 2, 2018 to the date of full payment, barring any special circumstance.
B. The defendant's assertion is a contract that provides a loan as security based on a car sales contract. Since the sales contract for the instant vehicle exists without a seller and becomes null and void, the instant loan contract also becomes null and void. In addition, the plaintiff's employee conspireds with C, D, E, and F to lend an automobile with a value of KRW 22 million, which is merely KRW 48 million, and thus, the contract was cancelled.
In this case, the defendant is related to the vehicle of this case.