beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and its related amount are 30% per annum from December 16, 2008 to May 9, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings is acknowledged that the plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant on November 16, 2008 by setting the interest rate of KRW 2.5% per month and due date of November 16, 2009.
According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from November 16, 2008 to May 9, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant, which the Plaintiff had engaged in loan brokerage business, for the investment deposit, and the Defendant paid more than the amount to the Plaintiff and returned all of them to the Plaintiff.
Since the defendant's claim against C was asserted to have been repaid in full by transferring his claim to the plaintiff, it is not sufficient to acknowledge this only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 through 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that he/she was declared bankrupt and thus is not responsible for the repayment of his/her obligations to the Plaintiff. According to the evidence Nos. 5, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit since it is acknowledged that the Defendant was declared bankrupt on September 5, 2016 (U.S. District Court 2016Hadan2288). Meanwhile, according to the evidence No. 4, the declaration of bankruptcy against the Defendant was abolished on March 14, 2017. The Defendant’s withdrawal of the application for immunity on March 2, 2017 (U.S. District Court 2016Ha288). Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.