beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 300,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from August 26, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of leasing vessel and marine equipment.
B. On August 24, 2008, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 300 million to the Defendant without setting the due date and interest. Accordingly, on August 26, 2008, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 300 million to the SCB bank account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”).
C. While the Defendant failed to repay the instant loan and received demands from the Plaintiff several times, on August 27, 2010, the Defendant drafted a letter of acceptance of cash loan repayment with the purport that “The instant loan will be repaid by June 30, 201,” and that “the instant loan will be repaid by July 18, 2011,” which read “the instant loan will be repaid by September 30, 201.”
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including virtual number), and the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 300,000,000 per annum from August 26, 2015 to September 30, 2015, which is the day following the delivery day of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of September 26, 2015, the statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Addenda of the Regulations on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (No. 26553, Sept. 25, 2015); the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Regulations on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015); and the damages for delay calculated by 15% per annum under the Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
3. The defendant's assertion that "the defendant argued that since he did not receive wages and expenses related to business from the plaintiff while working as the employee of the plaintiff, he would offset the plaintiff's above wage claims and expenses related to business against the plaintiff by the amount equivalent to the loan claims of this case." The defendant did not pay monthly salary and expenses related to the receipt of contracts by the plaintiff.