beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. 20,000,000 won to Plaintiff A and 12% per annum from November 1, 2011 to July 13, 2016;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 14, 2010, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 5,000,000, and KRW 15,000,000 on September 16, 201 to the Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s ACC.
Plaintiff
B (the Plaintiff’s mother) transferred KRW 30,000,000,000 on January 23, 2007, and KRW 10,000,00 on August 1, 2007 to the Agricultural Cooperative account of Co., Ltd.
B. By October 201, 201, interest (200,000 won per month for the plaintiff A, and 300,000 won per month after April 201 for the plaintiff B) was remitted to the plaintiffs' account in the name of Bupyeong Livestock & Livestock Co., Ltd., F (the defendant's female life), D, and E (20,000 won for the plaintiff B). The amount is 12% per annum for the plaintiff A and 9% per annum for the plaintiff B, if it is converted to annual interest rate.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of Gap 1 to 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiffs A lent 20,00,000 won to the defendant, who is the third village, on September 14, 2010, and the total of 20,000,000,000 won on September 16, 2010, with 12% per annum. The plaintiff B lent 40,000,000 won on January 23, 2007, with 10,000 interest rate of 40,000,000,000 won on August 7, 2007, the interest rate of 15% per annum on September 2008, and that of 9% per annum on April 2010.
Since the defendant does not pay interest to the plaintiffs from November 201, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loans and the damages for delay to the plaintiffs.
B. Borrowing money from the plaintiffs is not the defendant but D.
3. Determination
A. According to the following facts which are acknowledged by the parties to a dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), witness G testimony, witness witness Eul's partial testimony, and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the defendant borrowed the loan on the condition as alleged by the plaintiffs by using the accounts of D or Eul Co., Ltd.
(1) ① Company E has already closed its business on December 31, 2004, and was dissolved on December 1, 2009, and ② from April 30, 2003, the Defendant.