beta
Text
1. Defendant B (Appointed Party) from June 9, 2015 to KRW 73,206,83, out of the amount of KRW 118,03,482 and the above amount.
Reasons
(b) shall not become effective as to the portion of the amount paid, even if a quasi-loan contract or a novation contract is concluded on the amount equivalent to the interest paid in excess.
(2) In light of the above, the Defendant’s payment of the principal and interest to the Plaintiff as of June 8, 2015, which is the date of service of the original payment order of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da17046, Oct. 13, 1998; 2012Da81203, Feb. 14, 2013). Therefore, even if the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000, the part exceeding the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act is null and void, and the part paid by the Defendant in excess of the above interest rate is appropriated for principal, and considering the above, the payment order of this case was served on the date of service of the original payment order of this case.
(B) Mountain village management.* The sum of the principal of KRW 73,206,83 as of May 24, 2013 as of May 24, 2013* the interest on KRW 73,206,83 of the principal of KRW 73,206,83 of KRW 0.3x (215/365) x (215/365) x 44,826,649 of KRW 73,206,83 of the principal of KRW 73,203,50 from May 25, 2013 to June 8, 2015 (two years 15/365) = 73,206,833 won with interest on KRW 44,826,649 of the principal of the loan = 118,03,482 won.
4. According to the conclusion, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 118,03,482, and KRW 73,206,83, out of the loan in this case and the interest accrued until June 8, 2015, whichever is clear from June 9, 2015, to the day following the service of the above payment order, for KRW 73,206,833, among the above amounts, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the plaintiff's remaining claims against the above defendant C and the designated parties' claims against the above defendant C are groundless.