beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from November 1, 2012 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, witness B, and Eul as to the cause of the claim, the defendant borrowed KRW 50,000 from the plaintiff on October 31, 201, 3% of the agreed interest month and the due date for repayment, and the non-party C, who is the defendant's agent, has prepared a loan certificate to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is a person who received KRW 37,500,000 from the defendant from November 30, 201 to October 30, 2012.
According to the above facts, KRW 15,00,000, out of KRW 37,500,000 paid by the Defendant, shall be appropriated for the interest of KRW 30% per annum under Article 2 (1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227) within the scope of the parties to the agreement on the above loan from October 31, 201 to October 30, 201, the amount of KRW 22,50,000 shall be appropriated for KRW 50,000,000, and the remainder shall be appropriated for the interest of KRW 27,500,000,000,000, which shall be the remainder of the borrowed principal, and the Defendant shall be liable to pay the Plaintiff interest at the rate of 25% per annum within the scope of the parties to the agreement on the loan from November 1, 2012 to October 30, 2012.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that the above loan was borrowed from the plaintiff by the non-party C, and the defendant merely guaranteed the loan, and the claim in this case is claimed for more than three years as the guarantee period stipulated in the special law on the protection of the guarantor, and its effect is null and void.
In light of the relationship between the defendant and the non-party C, and the preparation of the loan certificate, the above loan money is borrowed from the plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant guaranteed the non-party C's obligation to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's assertion based on the above premise is without merit.
B. The defendant's assertion as to additional repayment is also limited to KRW 37,500,000, the plaintiff's person.