beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 1, 2005, Plaintiff A lent KRW 2% per month of interest rate and KRW 5,000,000 to Defendant C within seven months of maturity. On November 2005, Plaintiff A lent KRW 2% per month of interest rate and KRW 3,000,000 within seven months of maturity. On November 15, 2005, Plaintiff A loaned KRW 2% per month of interest rate and KRW 2% per year of maturity and within two years of maturity.
B. On October 27, 2010, Plaintiff A lent KRW 4,000,000 to Defendant E at an interest rate of 3% per month.
C. On October 27, 2010, Plaintiff A lent KRW 5,000,00 to Defendant F.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the claim of Defendant C, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from November 15, 2005 to the date of full payment, which is the agreement, at the rate of 10,000,000 won among the above loans, and the amount of interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 10,000,000 won, which is the final loan date, to the date of full payment.
(2) As to the determination of Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C asserted that: (a) paid the loan amounting to KRW 3,600,000 from November 2005 to February 2, 2006; (b) KRW 50,025,00 from March 2, 2006 to June 12, 2013; (c) however, Plaintiff A denied the authenticity of KRW 5 to 35,00 (including the additional number; and (d) Plaintiff A denies the authenticity of KRW 5-1 to 35; (c) however, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the signature of the Plaintiff is recognized as the signature of the Plaintiff; and (d) the signature of the said document is recognized as the establishment of the Plaintiff; and (e) the testimony of the witness of the first instance court from March 2, 2006 to June 12, 2013; (d) there is no evidence to acknowledge the purport of the Plaintiff C’s testimony as to Defendant C1.