beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 34 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from July 1, 2013 to February 2, 2015.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement in subparagraph 1 of this Article, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 29 million in total from March 25, 2011 to July 22, 2011. The Defendant promises to pay KRW 34 million in total to the Plaintiff on February 25, 2013, and KRW 29 million in total and interest KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2013.
It can be recognized that the loan certificate is drawn up and drawn up.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 34 million with 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 1, 2013 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from July 1, 2013 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not have any interest agreement with the Plaintiff, and there is no obligation to pay interest of KRW 5 million, and even if the obligation to pay household interest arises, it is alleged that only is responsible for interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum, which is the legal interest rate in civil law, from the loan date to the loan date. However, inasmuch as the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 34 million to the Plaintiff on February 25, 2013, and until June 30, 2013, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 34 million, and damages for delay from the date following the above payment date. The Defendant is liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, since the date following the date on which the complaint seeking the performance of monetary obligation was served to the Defendant, the Defendant’
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.