beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 142 million and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 10, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 1 and 2, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 290 million to the Defendant totaling KRW 148 million from July 22, 2016 to September 13, 2016, and the Plaintiff received KRW 10 million totaling of KRW 190 million from December 1, 2015 (e.g., repayment period) and KRW 100 million from December 9, 2015 (e., December 22, 2015).
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 10, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day after the original copy of the instant payment order, sought by the Plaintiff, from September 10, 2017 to the day after the due date.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, with respect to the above KRW 100 million on December 9, 2015, the Defendant and C paid to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 150 million, but for this purpose, C entered into a claim transfer agreement with respect to C’s claim 150 million to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant was not liable for payment.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, the fact that C prepared and delivered a letter of payment stating that it would pay KRW 150 million to the plaintiff on May 25, 2016 by June 1, 2016 is recognized.
However, such circumstance alone does not lead to the conclusion that C took over the Defendant’s obligation immunity, and there is no evidence that C transferred C’s claim against D to the Plaintiff.
Even if the claim is transferred, barring any special circumstance, the above assignment of claim is not performed in lieu of the repayment of the obligation, but for the repayment of the obligation. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff received the repayment of the above claim from D, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s obligation was extinguished.
The defendant's assertion is not accepted.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.