logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.09.14 2018가합71437
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 350,760,704 and a rate of KRW 25% per annum from March 7, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 100 million on March 20, 2017, KRW 100 million on March 27, 2017, KRW 80 million on March 27, 2017, KRW 150 million on March 30, 2017, and KRW 50 million on April 19, 2017 (hereinafter “the instant amount”).

B. From March 15, 2017 to March 6, 2018, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 255,00,000 as indicated in the “amount of reimbursement” column in the separate sheet of calculation of appropriation amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of whether to lend the instant money, subparagraph 2, and the purport of the entire argument, the Plaintiff can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant by setting the interest rate of 27.9% per annum and the maturity of payment on February 10, 2018.

The defendant asserts that the amount of this case is not a loan, but an investment loan, and the loan certificate (Evidence A 2) is merely prepared at the plaintiff's request to use it for the purpose of showing it to the family members, and that there was no agreement on the interest or the repayment period as stated therein.

However, if a disposition document is deemed to be authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da221368, Jun. 28, 2018). Since the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are insufficient to reverse the probative value of evidence No. 2, which is the disposition document, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 255,00,000 from the Defendant as stated in the calculation table of the amount appropriated in the attached sheet, and thus, the Plaintiff is in the order of interest and principal in accordance with Article 479 of the Civil Act, as stated in the calculation table of the amount appropriated in the attached sheet.

arrow