beta
Text
1. The part of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of necessary expenses shall be dismissed.
2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 21, 2008, the Plaintiff lent 500 million won to the Defendant at the interest rate of 4% per month, and on January 20, 2009 due date (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). On the same day, the Defendant issued a promissory note with a face value (=50 million won x 0.04 x 6 months) with a total of the interest accrued until the principal and the due date for payment (hereinafter “the instant loan agreement”).
B. On June 9, 2009, the Plaintiff’s wife leased KRW 130 million to the Defendant at the interest rate of KRW 4% per month, and on October 9, 2009, the due date for repayment was set to the Defendant. On the same day, the Defendant issued to C a promissory note with a face value of KRW 150,80,000 (= KRW 130,000,000 x 0.04 x 0.04 x 4 months) including the principal and interest up to the due date.
C. C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the loan claim amounting to KRW 2012, 4024, both the Suwon District Court and Suwon District Court.
In the above lawsuit, the defendant asserted that the defendant did not bear damages for delay after the due date for the loan contract of this case, and that the plaintiff or C paid a total of KRW 686,787,215 to the plaintiff and C, and the debt to C was fully repaid, and that the debt to C was 31,212,785 won.
On the other hand, the above court rendered a ruling on May 16, 2013 and rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was no obligation to pay damages for delay after the due date. By September 10, 2012, the Defendant paid 667,207,215 won to the Plaintiff by September 10, 2012, the agreement equivalent to 48% per annum is limited to 30% per annum pursuant to the Interest Limitation Act invalidating the interest agreement in excess of 30% per annum, and determined that the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff remains as principal amounting to 441,83,873 won as of September 10, 2012, and the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff remains in full.
The defendant of the above judgment is a strong and biased lawsuit of the presiding judge.