beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,233,400,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 29, 2015 to April 6, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant from 2007 to 2014, and thereafter, the Defendant requested that the Plaintiff pay only the principal without interest. The Defendant, around June 2014, prepared a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) to the effect that “the Defendant will repay the principal to the Plaintiff above 1,540,000,000 won borrowed from the Plaintiff, and KRW 10,000,000,000,000 from June 2014, and KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.”
B. From June 2014 to April 2015, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 106,60,000 to the Plaintiff.
C. On April 29, 2015, C and D, the Defendant’s children, transferred each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant, instead of paying KRW 200 million out of the Defendant’s loan obligations against the Plaintiff to E, the husband of the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3 to 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 1,233,400,000, excluding the amount that the Plaintiff received or replaced with the said loan, and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from May 29, 2015 to April 6, 2016, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the written application for modification of the purport of claim of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, the damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from June 1, 2014, but it is difficult to deem that there was a specific setting of the due date for repayment with respect to the above borrowed money. Therefore, this part of the claim is without merit.
However, the Plaintiff sought the return of the above borrowed money from several times before the institution of the instant suit, and the service date of the duplicate of the instant suit is deemed to have been imposed for a considerable period of time thereafter.