beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s total amount of KRW 44,148,192 and KRW 42,658,689 among the Plaintiff and the total amount of KRW 42,658,689 are annually from November 14, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an installment financing and loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant to purchase a passenger car B in Q703.7 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) on a condition that the principal and interest equal, interest rate of 48 months, interest rate of 9.5% per annum, interest rate of 24% per annum, and interest rate of 24% per annum, and lent KRW 45 million to the Defendant.
B. The Defendant paid the amount of the principal and interest in installments between the first three months, but the sum of the principal and interest that have not been repaid as of November 13, 2014, was 44,148,192 won (the principal of the loan was 42,658,689,503 won).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum from November 14, 2014 to the full payment date pursuant to the agreement, as to the total amount of principal and interest of loans of KRW 44,148,192, and the principal of loans of KRW 42,658,689.
Accordingly, the Defendant promised to hold the Defendant liable for all of the vehicle on the face of the loan borrowed in the name of Nonparty C while the credit is recovered. The Defendant did not directly conclude the loan agreement of this case when comprehensively considering the following: (a) the Defendant acknowledged that Nonparty C leased the instant vehicle to C, and allowed the Defendant to purchase the instant vehicle under his own name, and (b) allowed the Defendant to purchase the instant vehicle under his own name and enter into the instant loan agreement with his own name until the head of the sales office of the instant vehicle; and (c) based on the loan agreement of this case, the Defendant did not directly conclude the loan agreement.
C The instant loan agreement is also made on behalf of the Defendant.