beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 211,080,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 1, 2018 to August 29, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the pleadings set forth in subparagraphs A and 2, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 500,000,000 to the Defendant on December 9, 2016, and KRW 200,000,000 on January 20, 2017, and KRW 100,000,000 on February 24, 2017, and KRW 10,000,000 on February 27, 2017, and KRW 70,000,000 on April 7, 2017, and each of the loans was granted to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2017.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 211,080,000 won (=50,000,000 won - 288,920,000 won) and to pay damages for delay calculated by applying each rate of 12% per annum under the Civil Act from January 1, 2018, the day following the due date for repayment to August 29, 2019, which is reasonable to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the damages for delay calculated by applying each rate of 12% per annum as stipulated under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day
(1) The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of interest or delay damages from April 7, 2017, but there is no evidence that the Plaintiff agreed to pay interest between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of interest prior to the due date is rejected. In addition, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of interest prior to the due date is made on May 21, 2019, the statutory interest rate of 12% per annum pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019, and Article
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the parties who entered into a loan for consumption with the plaintiff are C and the defendant only served as a delivery of money to C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant specified the loan for consumption (Evidence A A) as the borrower.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is accepted.