beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 22,481,00 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from October 11, 2012 to May 14, 2014; and (b) May 15, 2014.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. 1) On December 18, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) on December 18, 2009, three hundred and twenty-seven square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
(2) In selling the Defendant at KRW 83,100,000, the contract deposit and intermediate payment concluded a sales contract to settle the remainder KRW 19,100,000 on the day in lieu of the Defendant’s acceptance of the loan of the said real estate (hereinafter “instant sales”).
(2) Since the Defendant did not pay interest on the instant real estate loans after the instant purchase and sale, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,881,000 in total as interest during the period from January 201 to April 2010.
3) In addition, the Plaintiff supplied piping materials to D operated by the Defendant by the end of March 2009, and the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 2,600,000 out of the price. (4) On March 20, 2009, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000 from the bond company under the Defendant’s joint and several surety’s wife E, and the Defendant paid KRW 2,100,000 out of the above bond interest.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 22,481,00 ( = interest of KRW 2,881,00 on loans of KRW 19,10,000 and interest of KRW 2,600,000 on bonds - interest of KRW 2,10,000 on bonds - interest of KRW 2,10,000), and as the Plaintiff seeks, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 11, 2012 to May 14, 2014 (the delivery date of the complaint in this case) and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 15, 2014 to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense dispute
A. The Defendant’s assertion on the amount of the instant sales price, unlike the entry in the instant sales contract, asserts that the Defendant actually agreed on the total sales price of KRW 80,000,00,000. However, as seen so, the evidence Nos. 3 (E’s written statement), witness F, and testimony of G was followed by F and G, and E was the Defendant’s wife.