beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 70 million and 5% per annum from October 6, 2014 to November 26, 2015; and
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement in subparagraph 1 of the same Article, the Defendant may recognize the fact that, on August 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) repaid KRW 70 million, out of KRW 140 million borrowed from the Plaintiff, up to August 4, 2015; (b) repaid KRW 70 million up to August 4, 2016; and (c) prepared and delivered a loan certificate promising to pay interest at the interest rate of 12% per annum to the Plaintiff on the fifth day per month (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) from October 2010 to July 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 140 million from the Plaintiff; and (b) completed and notarized the instant loan certificate, the Defendant delayed the performance of the instant loan certificate except interest for two months; (c) thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 140 million, which was promised to pay as the instant loan certificate, and the delay damages therefrom.
B. Determination 1) In full view of the purport of the foregoing facts as to the present portion of the due date and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 70 million, which has not been paid to the Plaintiff, and the damages for delay thereof, as of November 19, 2015, which is the date of the closing of the argument in this case. (2) The Plaintiff did not pay the agreed amount of KRW 70,000,000, which has already been paid to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff refused voluntary performance. As such, the Plaintiff immediately sought performance on the premise that the agreed amount of KRW 70,000,000, which has not yet been due as of the date of the closing of the argument
In this case where there is no evidence to prove that a special contract was made for the loss of the term interest, the health care unit where there is a reason for the loss of the term interest as prescribed by the Civil Act, and Article 388 of the Civil Act provides that ① the obligor has damaged, reduced or lost the security, and ② the obligor has failed to perform the obligation to provide the security.