logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.07.03 2019가합409110
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 567,840,000 won to the plaintiff and 25% per annum from October 20, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

On October 20, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 390,000 to the Defendant with the agreed interest rate of KRW 90,000 per annum and interest interest rate of KRW 25% per annum, and on October 19, 2016, the amount stated in the purport of the claim is claimed as KRW 107,713,726.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including branch numbers), the plaintiff transferred KRW 390,00,000 to the defendant on October 20, 201 on October 19, 201, interest rate of KRW 9% per annum, interest rate of KRW 25% per annum, and interest rate of the principal and interest (hereinafter "the loan contract of this case") on the same day when concluding a monetary loan agreement with the defendant on October 19, 201. The plaintiff changed the term of validity under the loan contract of this case with the defendant on October 19, 201 to October 19, 201, and the plaintiff thereafter changed the term of validity from October 19, 2012 to October 19, 2015 to the existing interest rate of KRW 390,000 per annum.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 567,840,00 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 390,000,000 per annum from October 20 to October 19, 2012, the interest of KRW 70,200,000 per annum from October 20, 2012 to October 19, 2012, the interest of KRW 107,640,00 per annum 6.9% per annum from October 20, 2012 to October 19, 2016) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 25% per annum, which is the delayed interest rate for the principal and interest from October 20, 2016 to the day of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow