beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs KRW 31,491,09 and each of the said money, respectively, from May 10, 2015 to March 8, 2016.
Reasons
(b) asserts that it has a duty to return;
However, the interest rate on the above 4, 5, and 6 part payments was directly paid by the plaintiffs to the financial institution for the defendant according to the joint and several guarantee agreement with the financial institution, and the defendant did not agree to return it to the plaintiffs. Thus, the additional contract was cancelled following the cancellation of the contract in this case.
Even if a financial institution is not a financial institution, it cannot be deemed that the above loan interest rate was returned to the Defendant.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.
Article 34,380,734 (Evidence 6) that the plaintiffs paid by the plaintiffs to the financial institution on behalf of the defendant after the commencement of the designation period for occupancy, and the plaintiffs have lent 2,4870,000 won to the defendant on May 22, 2009 for the second contract deposit, and interest or delay damages at the rate of 12,35,788 won on May 22, 2009 or December 31, 2010 at the rate of 8% per 3,210,614 won (i.e., 24,870,000 won x 0.0.00 x 0.8589/365 : hereinafter the same shall apply) on May 1, 2011 to 12,350,000 won or delay damages at the rate of 15.25% per annum 1,2015 to 27.17.25% per annum 16.15% per annum 15.25% per annum 28.15% per annum 14.25.25% per annum
3. Conclusion, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs a total of KRW 130,481,853 as above, and to pay KRW 31,491,09, respectively, within the scope of the above amount. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum from May 10, 2015 (the designated date of the Plaintiff) to March 8, 2016 (the delivery date) and from the next day to the day of full payment (the special cases concerning the promotion, etc. of litigation) to the Plaintiffs, respectively.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.