beta
Text
The defendant shall pay KRW 96,565,480 to the plaintiff. The remaining claims of the plaintiff are dismissed.
20% out of the costs of lawsuit.
Reasons
1. On August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 70 million to the Defendant at the rate of 24% per annum on December 27, 2012 upon the introduction of D. However, the Defendant repaid KRW 30 million on June 9, 2017, and KRW 40 million on February 14, 2019.
The above money is fully appropriated for interest accrued until February 14, 2019, and the principal and interest are KRW 108,578,629 on the basis of the above lump-sum basis. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delayed damages from February 15, 2019 for KRW 108,578,629 and the principal amount of KRW 70 million.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70 million from the Defendant at an interest rate of 24% per annum and due date for repayment on December 27, 2012” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).
[The defendant led to the preparation of the loan certificate of this case before receiving money on the first hearing date, but argued that D prepared the above loan certificate on November 20, 2019 through the preparatory document prepared on November 20, 2019, and revoked the existing confession.
However, while the Defendant asserted that the loan certificate of this case was invalid while disputing the validity of the registration of creation of the right to collateral security with the claim amounting to KRW 40 million in the Plaintiff’s name in the prior suit following the lower lawsuit, it did not assert that the loan certificate of this case was in force, and even in the instant case, D testified that “the principal prepared the loan certificate of this case” was offered as above. However, considering that D’s testimony did not provide evidence supporting the above assertion in addition to D’s testimony, and D’s testimony was still reversed and it is difficult to believe that D’s testimony was still reversed, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant directly prepared the above loan certificate or delegated it to D, and it is difficult to recognize that the confession of this case was in violation of the truth and due to mistake, the revocation of the confession is void).
2) Around that time, the Plaintiff is KRW 70 million against D.