beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff, who registered a credit business under the trade name of "C", agreed on May 29, 2013 to grant a loan of KRW 3 million to the defendant at the rate of 38.4% per annum of interest on August 28, 2013, and to pay KRW 2.5 million per account transfer on the same day to the defendant in cash. The fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 2.5 million per annum to the defendant in cash on the same day is recognized, and the above fact of recognition is insufficient to back and there is no other counter-proof.
Therefore, 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 April 19, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the date of the first instance judgment, for which the Plaintiff seeks a loan of 3 million won and the day of the first instance judgment, to the day of full payment.
2. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until the cancellation of the right to collateral security on the motor vehicle owned by the defendant in order to secure the above loan's claim, and the plaintiff is obligated to identify the location of D and provide documents necessary for the cancellation of collateral security right.
According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the mortgage was completed on May 29, 2013 by the mortgagee D (which appears to be the employee of the plaintiff) with respect to the Potete vehicle owned by the defendant as of May 29, 2013. However, if the registration of establishment of a mortgage was completed for the purpose of the security of the debt, the debtor's debt repayment is prior to the registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage and is not in a concurrent performance relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 69Da1173, Sept. 30, 1969). Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's objection.