beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,624,393 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 24% per annum from November 8, 2016 to June 26, 2017.
Reasons
1. Assertion and determination
A. Upon examining the reasoning of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, and part of Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 10 as to the cause of the claim in addition to the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff set interest at 2% per month from July 2012 and lent money several times to the defendant from July 10, 2012. The defendant, on June 10, 2013, kept the contract form for the sale of neighborhood living facilities and multi-household houses newly constructed on the land of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as security for KRW 100 million, and all loan certificates issued by the defendant to the plaintiff before June 10, 2013 shall be substituted by each letter issued by the defendant on June 10, 2013 (each letter of this case). The plaintiff may claim a loan bond under each of the letter of this case and file a claim for the transfer of ownership of each of the above multi-household houses under the provisional seizure order.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 100,000 as borrowed money and interest or delay damages on the borrowed money under each of the above certificates, unless there are special circumstances.
(A) The defendant asserted that there was no interest agreement on the above loan, but the letter of this case was made about KRW 100 million, and the plaintiff set interest at 2% per month and transacted with the defendant, and the defendant also recognized it and paid interest calculated at 2% per month on all loan borrowed from the plaintiff. Thus, it is reasonable to view that there was an interest agreement on 2% per month on the loan borrowed from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's above argument is rejected).
The judgment of the defendant's defense against the defendant's defense of payment is a defense that the defendant partially repaid the loan of each of the documents of this case, and thus, the purport of the whole pleadings is as follows: No. 3-1 and No. 2.