beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 279,00,000 and KRW 150,000 among them, from March 1, 2007, and KRW 80,000,000.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 (including branch numbers in case of additional numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff loans to the defendant, ① KRW 150 million on Jan. 16, 2007, until February 28, 2007, ② KRW 80 million on Feb. 6, 2007, respectively, as of April 30, 2007; ③ KRW 40 million on Mar. 24, 2007, ④ April 5, 2007, respectively.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 279 million to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 80 million in total) (i.e., KRW 40 million in total).
B. The plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay from March 1, 2007, the day after the due date for repayment with respect to KRW 150 million, out of the above KRW 279 million, to the plaintiff. The defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from May 1, 2007, the day after the due date for payment with respect to KRW 80 million from March 1, 2007. 2) On the other hand, the plaintiff is liable for delay with respect to KRW 40 million as of March 24, 2007 from May 31, 2007, and KRW 9 million as of April 5, 2007 from the date after the due date for payment with respect to each of the above loans. However, if each of the above loans was made on April 30, 2007, and there is no evidence that the due date for delay from the date after the due date for payment with respect to each of the above loans was due for delay of payment from the lender.
The facts that the original copy of the instant payment order was delivered to the Defendant on August 4, 2016, which included the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to seek payment of the above loan against the Defendant (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act), are apparent in the record, and the Defendant shall be deemed liable for delay of performance from the date following the lapse of two weeks recognized as a reasonable period from that time.
Therefore, the plaintiff's objection.