beta
Text
1. Defendant C and D jointly and severally agreed on KRW 151,202,559 against Plaintiff B and their related thereto from July 30, 2015 to December 9, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff B and the defendant C are between each other.
Plaintiff
A is the husband and son of each of the defendant C, the children of the plaintiff B, the defendant D, and E.
B. On August 16, 2011, Plaintiff B lent KRW 200,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) to Defendant C without setting the due date and interest, and remitted the said money from its own account to Defendant C’s old account. On the same day, Defendant D guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation to return the said loan.
C. From August 19, 2011 to October 1, 2014, Defendant C repaid to Defendant B KRW 48,797,441 in total over forty-one occasions.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 5, Gap's financial transaction information reply and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the plaintiff B's claim
A. According to the facts of recognition as above, Defendant C and D are jointly and severally liable for the repayment of principal amounting to KRW 200,000,000,00 that was leased to Plaintiff B without any interest agreement, and as to the remainder of KRW 151,202,559, the following day after the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, which is the date following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to dispute as to the existence and scope of the said Defendants’ obligation from July 30, 2015 to December 9, 2016, and damages for delay calculated at each rate of KRW 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from the next day to the date of the instant judgment, to December 9, 2016.
Plaintiff
B asserts that the above KRW 48,797,441 was paid as interest on KRW 200,00,000,000. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Plaintiff B lent the above KRW 200,000,000 to the time or subsequently agreed on interest. Thus, even if the above KRW 48,797,441 was paid over several occasions, it cannot be deemed as being appropriated for the repayment of interest obligation, and thus, Plaintiff B’s above.