beta
Text
1. The Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s KRW 27,00,000 as well as the annual interest rate of KRW 15% from May 5, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. In light of the fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (the authenticity of the document may be recognized when considering the fact that the defendant directly entered his resident registration number in this document), and evidence Nos. 2, the whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: while the defendant was supplied with goods from the Cleanupte Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the " Cleanupte"), the defendant's unpaid goods payment liability amounting to KRW 27,00,000 on January 2, 2007; the plaintiff's payment liability amounting to KRW 26,505,950 on behalf of the defendant on January 2, 2007 and February 2, 2007 (=12,01,000,830 won,501,000 won, 9,503, 1207, 207, 207, 2007).
Provided, That the payment shall be made within three to five days.
It can be recognized that the loan certificate stating the purport that "" includes resident registration numbers directly to the plaintiff and that the certificate was passed down.
According to the above facts, it can be deemed that the Defendant agreed on April 7, 2007 that the principal and interest of the indemnity amount to be repaid by the Defendant shall be the object of the loan for consumption while preparing the evidence No. 1 (the evidence of tea) to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 27,00,000 as quasi-loan and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 5, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.
2. The defendant's assertion is asserted that the plaintiff demanded to report to the purification test and entered the resident registration number in Gap evidence No. 1 (the evidence submitted by the defendant). However, since the above quasi-loan contract was formally formed without the defendant's intent to bear obligations in collusion with the plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that it constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy, the defendant's assertion is acceptable.