beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 26, 2016 to February 23, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and all the arguments, according to the purport of the whole statement and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of branch numbers), the plaintiff set loans to C on December 21, 2015 as of March 21, 2016 on the expiry date of the loan, and additionally loans KRW 10,000,000 on April 16, 2016. The defendant would pay the plaintiff the above loans to C on behalf of the plaintiff on May 18, 2016, and the plaintiff will pay the loan amount of KRW 30 million on behalf of the plaintiff,00,000,000, and the standard transaction contract form as of June 25, 2016 on the expiration date of the loan term.
According to the above facts, it is determined that the defendant, around May 18, 2016, prepared a standard contract for loan transaction to the plaintiff, thereby accepting at least the above loan obligation against the plaintiff of C.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,00,000 and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Civil Act from June 26, 2016 to February 23, 2017, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to repay from June 26, 2016, which is the date of the judgment of this case, and from the following day to the date of full payment.
(A) The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from June 25, 2016, the expiration date of the loan period, but it is not possible to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s claim on June 2, 201, is without merit).
A. The defendant asserts that ① the defendant's preparation of the standard contract for loan transaction to the plaintiff was made without the consent of C, which is the debtor, and thus, it did not take effect, and ② the defendant paid a considerable portion of the loan transaction to the plaintiff.
B. We examine the argument regarding C’s consent with a single priority;