beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for further determination as to the argument that the defendant newly claims or emphasizes as the reason for appeal by this court, as the reason for appeal, and as to the argument that the defendant claims to be emphasized as the reason for appeal by this court, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in Article 420 of
[Attachment] Attacheds to the judgment of the court of first instance shall be substituted by the Attacheds to this judgment.
The second page 10 of the judgment of the first instance court is "135 times" and the second page "1,092,00,000 won" are "1,105,000,000 won" and "1,105,000 won" are "1,00,000 won."
Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance court is as follows.
"1,092,00,000 won" in Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to read "1,05,000,000 won" in Part 18 of the judgment of the court of second instance, "(1,092,00,000) without any dispute, entry of the evidence of No. 7 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
Part III through IV of the judgment of the first instance court shall be deleted.
The "114,414,586 won" in the 5th sentence of the first instance court shall be "23,613,148 won".
From 5th to 15th of the judgment of the first instance court, the 5th to 13th of the judgment is as follows.
“ Therefore, the Defendant shall be liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the loan 223,613,148 won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from January 26, 2019 to the date of full payment.”
2. Determination as to the defendant's new arguments and the main grounds for appeal
A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not have agreed to pay the Plaintiff interest exceeding the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act with respect to the instant loan. 2) Even if such interest agreement was concluded, such agreement is null and void in accordance with Article 104 of the Civil Act due to a juristic act that considerably lost fairness due to the Defendant’s poverty, rashness, and inexperience.
3..