beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 and its amount are 5% per annum from December 10, 2009 to February 12, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1 of the part of the loan claim as of January 2, 2009 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent 60 million won to C on January 2, 2009 as of March 10, 2009, the defendant guaranteed the plaintiff's obligation to return the above loan to C, and that C did not pay 60 million won to the plaintiff by the closing date of pleadings of this case.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 60 million and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 10, 2009, which is the date of the judgment of this case, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the plaintiff from December 10, 209 to February 12, 2015, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
(1) The plaintiff filed a claim for damages for delay at a rate of 24% per annum from December 10, 2009 to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff and C agreed to pay damages for delay at a rate of 24% per annum for the above period. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay of this part, seeking payment at a rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act, is without merit).
The Plaintiff asserts that the portion of the claim for a loan as of April 30, 2009, May 2, 2009, and September 9, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned to the Defendant a total of KRW 60 million, in total, KRW 10 million on April 30, 2009, KRW 22, million on May 22, 2009, KRW 30 million on September 9, 2009, and KRW 60 million on September 3, 2009.
However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 through 4 and Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including paper numbers) submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.
2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim.