beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15,00,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 2, 2014 to March 18, 2015; and (b) March 19, 2015.
Reasons
1. Claim for damages
(a) Indication of claim: A claim for damages with respect to KRW 14,00,000, which the Defendant acquired from the Plaintiff as the purchase price for raw and secondary materials obtained from the Plaintiff on November 201, 201.
(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Requests for loans;
A. Indication of claim: A claim for refund of KRW 1,00,000,000 that the plaintiff lent to the defendant around August 10, 2011
(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. The plaintiff asserts that he suffered mental damage due to the tort stipulated in the above paragraph (1) above, and claims 10,000,000 won as consolation money. However, in case where the property right of another person was infringed due to the tort, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the compensation for the property damage was recovered. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff suffered mental damage not recovered only by the compensation for the property damage. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.
4. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 15,00,000 won ( = 14,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from April 2, 2014 to March 18, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the plaintiff, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 19, 2015 to the day of full payment (the plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15,00,000 won for the period from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of pronouncement of this judgment. However, the defendant is deemed reasonable to claim damages for delay with respect to the existence and scope of the obligation of this case, and the plaintiff's claim of this case does not apply to the remainder within the scope of recognition.