beta
Text
All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
In full view of the evidence evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap, the plaintiff set the repayment period of KRW 100,000,000 to the defendant C on March 18, 2009 as KRW 5,000 per annum (60% per annum) and interest month (hereinafter "the instant lending agreement") and lent (hereinafter "the instant lending agreement") to the defendant C on May 18, 2009, and the fact that the defendant Eul guaranteed the above obligation of the defendant C is recognized.
According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the interest rate of 24% per annum, which is the limit under the Interest Limitation Act from May 19, 2009 to the date of full payment.
2. Determination as to the defendants' assertion of payment in kind
A. The Defendants asserted that, on July 18, 201, Defendant C provided the instant loan obligations to the Plaintiff as payment in lieu of the instant loan obligations, the obligation under the instant loan agreement was extinguished by completing the settlement of accounts by providing the head of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the instant officetels on the ground Etel (hereinafter “instant officetel”). As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant officetel was transferred for the purpose of transfer by means of transfer, and that the instant instant loan claim was not extinguished since the instant officetel was executed and the instant officetel was lost the Plaintiff’s ownership.
B. 1) The issue of whether a real estate owned by an obligor in relation to the obligation of related legal principles has been transferred to a creditor in the future, whether it was transferred to a payment in kind, or whether it was transferred for the security of a previous obligation is an issue of interpretation of the intent of the parties at the time of transfer of ownership. If there is no clear proof as to this issue, it should be determined whether it is a security purpose by taking into account all the circumstances such as the situation at the time of transfer of ownership, control and disposal of real estate thereafter, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da1980, Jun. 8, 19