beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 50,00,000 to Plaintiff A; KRW 2,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and each of them, from July 9, 2014 to February 5, 2015.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Gap evidence 1-2-4, and Gap evidence 13, the plaintiff Gap lent KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant around April 6, 2005, and the plaintiff Eul lent the plaintiff's claim to the defendant on February 28, 2006 and the same year.
3.2. Each of the 10,000,000 won was leased to the Defendant, and the fact that the Plaintiffs urged the Defendant to pay the above loans and sent the mail requiring the payment to the Defendant even if it was divided on April 14, 2014 may be recognized respectively.
2) The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant paid interest at the rate of 7.4% per annum on each of the above loans. However, the entries in Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, Gap evidence 4, and Eul evidence 13-13 alone are insufficient to acknowledge such interest agreement, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and therefore, the part claiming interest of the Plaintiffs is without merit. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff 50 million won as loans and the damages for delay as loans to the Plaintiff 20,000,000 won as loans to the Plaintiff 5,00,000 won and the damages for delay as loans to the Plaintiff 20,000 won.
B. The fact that the Defendant paid KRW 3,000,000 to the bank account of Defendant B for the repayment of the above loan obligation is without dispute between the parties. The Plaintiffs asserted that the above KRW 3,00,000 should be appropriated for the interest on the loan obligation of Plaintiff A until the payment date. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that there was an interest agreement on the loan obligation of the Plaintiffs as above, and therefore, the above assertion by the Plaintiffs is without merit.
Therefore, it is reasonable that the above KRW 3,000,000 is appropriated for the principal of Defendant B’s loan claims, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was damages for delay due to the arrival of the repayment period for the Plaintiffs’ loan claims until the above repayment date.
Plaintiff .