beta
Text
1. The portion of the primary claim against Defendant C by the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the appointed parties D, E, and F shall be dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. Claim against the defendant B
A. (1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3-8 (including various numbers), the fact that the deceased G lent KRW 100 million to defendant B on March 8, 2002 without the due date agreement (hereinafter "the instant loan"), the deceased on April 5, 2012, and the heir died on the deceased on April 5, 2012, and the fact that the heir was F, who was a child, died on May 30, 197, can be acknowledged.
(1) Defendant B asserts that the above KRW 100 million was paid as investment money to Defendant B, an incorporated association, etc. operated by Defendant B and the network G, not as a loan, but as investment money. However, each of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 9 alone is insufficient to deem that the above recognition was followed and the above KRW 100 million was paid as investment money. Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay from December 31, 2013 to the date following the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff, Selection D, E, and F, the heir of the network G, except in extenuating circumstances.
(2) The plaintiff and the selected parties D, E, and F (hereinafter "the plaintiff, etc.") filed a claim for the payment of interest calculated at the rate of 9.6% per annum from December 1, 2010 to December 1, 2010 on the above KRW 100,000,000 per month, asserting that the net G received interest calculated at the rate of 1.2 million per month from April 2002 to July 2004 on the loan of this case from April 2004, and that from August 2004, from August 1, 2004, the interest calculated at the rate of 9.6% per annum against the above KRW 100,000 was the day following the period during which the interest was paid. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement on interest on the loan of this case between the deceased G and
B. (1) Defendant B has a defense that the statute of limitations expired for the instant loan claim.
The repayment period of the loan claim in this case is not determined by G and Defendant B.