beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 120,000 to the Defendant for KRW 100,000 each day, and on November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 10,000 each day for KRW 120,000 to the Defendant. On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff determined and lent the amount of KRW 2.5% interest per month and the due date on February 25, 2018.
Since the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 3.7 million out of the principal and interest of the loan as of November 14, 2017, and the Plaintiff was not paid at all on November 16, 2017, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of KRW 2.5% per month, which is the agreed rate from November 17, 2017 to the date of full payment.
2. According to the evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, and No. 3 of the judgment, on November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million from the account under the name of the Defendant to the account under the name of the Defendant from November 14, 2017, and the fact that money equivalent to KRW 200,000 to KRW 60,000 has been deposited from the account under the name of the Defendant to the said account under the name of the Defendant is recognized, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000 to the Defendant as alleged above. Rather, according to the purport of the statement and the entire argument of the evidence No. 1-1, the person who borrowed money from the Plaintiff appears to be D by the Defendant, not the Defendant.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
In addition, the plaintiff asserts to the effect that D had legitimate reasons to believe that D had the right of representation for the defendant or that the plaintiff had the right of representation for the defendant, hearing that D had requested money in the store operated by the defendant and transferred the loan to the account in the name of the defendant, and that D had the right of representation for the defendant as the defendant's representative.
However, just because it is alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that a monetary loan contract has been concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, and otherwise, D has the power of representation from the Defendant.