beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 191,483,292 and its weight to the Plaintiff:
(a) As regards KRW 26,219,359, the full payment shall be made from June 30, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff lent 14.9% interest per annum, 26.9% per annum, 26.9% per annum, and 36 months principal and interest per annum, to the Defendant by means of equal installment repayment, and ② on May 31, 2013, 9.5% per annum, 24% per annum, and 72 months principal and interest per annum.
B. The defendant is the above A.
The repayment of the debt of the claim was delayed, thereby losing the benefit of time.
C. The debt remaining as of June 29, 2017 reaches 44,383,943 won ( principal 26,219,359; interest 2,417,731; interest 15,746,853; interest 2,417; interest 15,746,853); and the mid-term amount of the loan extended on May 31, 2013, 147,09,349 ( interest 93,803,749; interest 7,476,834; overdue interest 45,818,766).
[Grounds for Recognition: entry in the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest rate of 191,483,292 won (14,383,943 won, 147,099,349) with the principal and interest on the loan and 26,219,359 won with interest rate of 26.9% per annum from June 30, 2017 to the date of full payment, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum with interest rate of 93,803,740 won with interest rate of 24% per annum from June 30, 2017 to the date of full payment.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s representative director B was declared bankrupt and exempted as the Suwon District Court No. 2015Hadan10020, 2015Ma10020, which became final and conclusive on April 21, 2017, and the Plaintiff was also included in the creditors’ list, and thus, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan obligation was discharged, but the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the instant loan against the Defendant, a non-individual, while the Plaintiff is asserting that the Defendant was exempted from the obligation to pay the loan. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, on the grounds that B was declared bankrupt and exempted from the obligation to pay the loan.
3. Conclusion.