beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,141,815 as well as KRW 20,000 among them, from August 24, 2015 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, on July 8, 2013, executed a loan of KRW 20,00,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant has lost the benefit of time by paying only interest until July 4, 2015. The amount of debt up to August 23, 2015 to be borne by the Defendant under the terms and conditions stipulated in the above loan agreement is KRW 20,141,815 ( Principal KRW 20,00,000), and the amount of debt up to August 23, 2015 is KRW 20,141,815 (interest KRW 141,815). The fact that the rate of delay damages by 18% per annum from that time is either disputed between the parties or can be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of arguments in the items in subparagraphs 1 and
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 18% per annum from August 24, 2015 to the date of full payment with respect to KRW 20,141,815 and KRW 20,000 among them.
2. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that it was true that he entered into the above loan contract with the plaintiff, but this was done upon the request of the plaintiff B, and all loans were used, so the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.
However, the fact that the Defendant directly signed a loan contract with the Plaintiff is also recognized by the Defendant. If a third party directly signed and sealed as the principal debtor in the loan-related documents, such as a monetary loan agreement, then the third party itself indicates that it is the debtor of the loan-loan contract, and the third party had the intent to obtain a loan under the name of the third party by avoiding the lending restriction stipulated by the financial institution.
Even if the principal and interest are to be repaid at the expense of another person, barring special circumstances, this is merely an intention to vest economic effects under a loan for consumption in a third party, and the legal effect cannot be viewed as an intention to vest in the third party.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da7772 Decided June 12, 2008, etc.).