beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff on March 14, 2015, stating that the agreement shall be set at a rate of 16.8% per annum and that the agreement shall be lent to the Defendant on March 14, 2015, in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “instant contract”). The Defendant’s employee seal affixed to the “Borrower” as of the end of the instant contract.
B. On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded the instant monetary loan agreement, and transferred KRW 20 million to the account held in the Defendant’s name.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan contract of this case in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the cause of the claim, and the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s account is as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff was transferred from the preparatory document dated September 20, 2016 to the Defendant on March 13, 2015, “interest of KRW 1,184,400 equivalent to the amount of five months” under the monetary loan contract of this case.
Although the agreement under the monetary loan contract of this case has been set at KRW 1,400,00 (=20 million x 16.8% x 5/12) as the Plaintiff’s statement, the interest rate for the five-month period is set at KRW 1,40,000,000 (=20 million x 16.8% x
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 16.8% per annum, which is the rate of 16.8% per annum from March 15, 2015, which was the day following the date on which the instant monetary loan contract was concluded, and five months from October 15, 2014, which was the day following the date on which the agreement was concluded.
The defendant defenses that the contract of this case was forged, but the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been established because there is no dispute as to the part of the defendant's seal imprint, and the contract of this case is followed as seen below in paragraph (3).