beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 79,120,000 as well as 25% per annum from September 1, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 26, Gap evidence 27-1 to 3, Gap evidence 28, Eul evidence 2 to Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 16, and Eul evidence 16.
On February 5, 2003, the Plaintiff, under the name of ASEAN, lent KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant with interest rate of KRW 3% per month and July 5, 2003, and has been engaged in money transactions that lend the Defendant with interest rate of KRW 3% per month and receive part of the principal and interest.
B. On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant by determining the period of repayment as the time of disposing of the real estate on the Defendant’s side, and received cash custody certificates (Evidence A8; hereinafter “the first custody certificate of this case”) confirming that the amount of unpaid payment was KRW 72,00,000, out of the amount loaned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from the Defendant up to that time.
C. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff leased KRW 7,120,000 to the Defendant with the due date set as September 17, 2015, and received cash custody certificate (Evidence A; hereinafter “instant custody certificate”) from the Defendant.
2. Determination:
A. The judgment for the cause of the claim, and as long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized to be genuine, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable evidence to deny the contents of the statement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da24804 Decided July 23, 2009). In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Gap evidence Nos. 9, the defendant is aware that the plaintiff bears the obligation to borrow KRW 72,00,000 according to the first custody certificate of this case and the obligation to borrow KRW 7,120,000 according to the second custody certificate of this case, and the interest rate for monetary transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant is the interest rate for monetary transactions.