beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A’s 64,157,817 won and its 26,006,859 won among the money and its 64,157,817 won to the completion date.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On December 30, 2010, the Komato2 Savings Bank Co., Ltd. loaned KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) to Defendant A on January 15, 2013 due date for joint and several sureties (39,000,000 won) (hereinafter “instant loan”).
(2) Meanwhile, as of June 26, 2012, the outstanding principal and interest of this case as of June 26, 2012 is KRW 26,006,859, interest and overdue interest KRW 38,150,958, and KRW 64,157,817.
(3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy after having been declared bankrupt of the Komato 2 Savings Bank.
【Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or is not clearly disputed, Gap evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
B. According to the above facts, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 64,157,817 won of the sum of the principal and interest of this case as well as KRW 26,006,859, which is the outstanding principal of the loan, to the Plaintiff at the rate of 39% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from March 6, 2015 to the full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, and Defendant B is jointly and severally obligated to pay the said amount to the Plaintiff within the limit of KRW 39,00,000,000, which is the maximum amount of collateral guarantee.
2. As to the determination of the Defendants’ defense, the Defendants asserted that: (a) through the use of economic fluenite and frushed situation and frush, Homato Savings Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., concluded the loan agreement in this case with a high interest rate of 27% per annum and 39% per annum; and (b) the loan agreement in this case was null and void; (c) however, the loan agreement in this case constitutes an act of anti-social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act solely on the ground that the interest rate and delayed rate under the loan agreement in this case is 27% per annum
In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize the defendants as a significant unfair practice due to the old-age or rashion of the defendants as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Code.