beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from April 15, 2016 to April 21, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 25, 2015, the Defendant concluded a monetary loan agreement with the purport that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff shall lose its interest immediately if the Plaintiff wishes to repay the borrowed principal by withdrawing the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “non-party C”) before the repayment period, the amount of KRW 48 million per month from October 2015 to September 2016, and KRW 20 million from October 27, 2016, and the amount of KRW 200,000 per month.”
B. After doing so, the Defendant paid 16 million won out of the above borrowed money to the Plaintiff and retired the non-party company on March 10, 2016.
C. On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail demanding reimbursement of KRW 34 million of the remainder borrowed principal by March 31, 2016, and the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) As seen earlier, as the Defendant retired from the non-party company, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail demanding reimbursement of KRW 34 million of the remaining loan principal until March 31, 2016, and the mail verifying the above content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time, causing a cause for loss of benefit of time. As such, the Defendant shall be held liable for delay from April 1, 2016, the day following the day when the Plaintiff agreed upon as the due date in the content-certified mail. (2) As seen earlier, the Defendant determined that there was no agreed party in the loan agreement of this case, but even if the interest agreement on the monetary obligation does not exist and it is impossible to claim interest at all due to the obligor’s delay at the statutory rate. Thus, Supreme Court Decision 209Da85342 Decided December 14, 2009.