beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 73,458,629 as well as KRW 50,00,000 among them, from December 16, 2014 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1’s argument as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff shall set interest rate of 24% per annum on December 30, 2009 (payment period: December 25, 2010) and KRW 50 million on August 8, 201 (payment period: August 8, 2012) as to KRW 40 million and interest rate of KRW 10 million up to August 30, 201 and interest rate of KRW 10 million up to August 30, 2012, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be liable to pay the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 50 million and delay damages.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant agreed to pay the interest of the said loan in installments from December 2014 to the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the agreement. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
B. The Defendant’s assertion of repayment is asserting that the Defendant paid KRW 4 million to the Plaintiff on December 15, 2014. The above fact of repayment is without dispute between the parties, and if it is appropriated for the interest on the above loan as follows: (i) the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum from December 16, 2014 to the date of full payment of the borrowed principal (23,458,629 won totaling the interest on the borrowed principal up to December 15, 2014) and the interest on the borrowed principal (23,458,629 won totaling the interest on the borrowed principal up to December 15, 2014). Therefore, the Defendant’s statement of repayment is with merit.
① Interest of KRW 40,00 by 24% per annum from August 31, 2012 to December 15, 2014 [22,00 won = 40,000 won ¡¿ 0.24 x (2107/365)] (2) interest of KRW 10,000 at the rate of 24% per annum from September 9, 2012 to December 15, 2014]; (383 won [10,00 x 0.24 x (298/365)]; ③ (3) interest of KRW 5,44,383 per annum (24% per annum from December 15, 2014 to December 15, 2014; (3)
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.