beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 24% per annum from February 25, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On January 27, 2016, the Defendant’s representative director C borrowed KRW 100,000,000 from D on January 28, 2016, and KRW 80,000,000 on February 29, 2016 at a rate of 2% per month, respectively, and drafted a certificate of loan to the effect that the principal shall be paid at the rate of KRW 10,00,000 and the interest calculated under the above rate shall be paid on July 25, 2016, and D remitted KRW 100,000 to the Defendant on January 29, 2016.
B. Don July 4, 2016, transferred loans of KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on January 27, 2016 and its incidental claims to the Plaintiff, and transferred them to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2016; and
7. 25. The Defendant notified the Defendant of the content certification and sent it to the Defendant at each time.
[Grounds for recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the underlying facts of the judgment as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who is the transferee of the bonds the interest calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from February 25, 2016 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiff, as the loan date.
On April 26, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 200,000,00 to the Plaintiff instead of transferring the Plaintiff’s share of “F, G” operated jointly with the Plaintiff on April 26, 2016. Of them, KRW 100,000,000 borrowed from D on behalf of the Plaintiff shall be treated as the Defendant acting on behalf of the Plaintiff, and KRW 50,000,000,000 paid to NSSP corporations shall belong to E with the obligation to return the restaurant operation deposit paid to H, and KRW 50,00,000 shall be paid from H (hereinafter “instant agreement”). However, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff extinguished the Defendant’s obligation to repay the Defendant’s loans to H, but there is no lack of evidence to acknowledge that the agreement was concluded as otherwise alleged by the Defendant solely on the basis of each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 16.
Rather, according to Gap evidence Nos. 8 and 15, E is the plaintiff on April 26, 2016.