beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and its amount shall be 7.2% per annum from November 19, 2011 to August 6, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff remitted KRW 50,000,000 to the new bank account under the name of the defendant on November 30, 2010, and the defendant thereafter, signed the certificate of borrowing KRW 50,000 on December 18, 201, 30,000 (annual 7.2%), and the due date for payment on December 18, 201, and delivered it to the plaintiff.
According to this, the defendant borrowed 50,000,000 won from the plaintiff as the due date of December 18, 201 and interest 300,000 won per annum (7.2% per annum).
I would like to say.
Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest or delay damages at each rate of KRW 50,000 and KRW 15% per annum from the following day to the date of delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the Defendant from November 19, 2011, which is clear in the record that the agreement rate is 7.2% per annum from August 6, 2018, and from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the person who borrowed and used the above 50,000,000 won from the plaintiff only C (alias) but the defendant did not borrow the above 50,000,000 won from the plaintiff.
However, as seen earlier, as long as the above KRW 50,00,000 was deposited in the defendant's account and the defendant signed on the loan certificate of this case, regardless of whether the actual user is the borrower, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 50,000,000 to the plaintiff according to the contents stated in the loan certificate of this case.
I would like to say.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
In addition, the defendant asserts that the signing of the loan certificate in this case as the borrower is only based on C's demand and is not based on the truth, and is null and void.
However, as the defendant asserts, C's signing of the loan certificate of this case as the borrower.