beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 1, 2016 to December 7, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the underlying facts, and the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff extended KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant on Nov. 26, 2014 (hereinafter “the first loan”) and KRW 20,000,000 on Nov. 12, 2015 (hereinafter “the second loan”) each of the loans (hereinafter “the second loan”).
2. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff loaned the instant loan to the Defendant on a monthly basis of 3% of the interest rate. Since the Defendant did not pay not only the principal of the instant loan but also interest thereon from September 1, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the instant loan. 2) The amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name is either the instant loan and the Plaintiff’s loan amount of KRW 110,00,000, and the amount of interest for KRW 20,000,000 for the Defendant’s loan to Nonparty D, who is the Plaintiff’s father, with respect to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant did not have paid the Plaintiff the principal of the instant loan and the interest therefor after September 1, 2016.
B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not agree with the interest on the instant loan, and paid a total of KRW 42,300,000 to the Plaintiff, and all of the instant loan was extinguished by the repayment.
As above, the lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff constitutes an abuse of rights even though all of the loans of this case were extinguished.
3. Determination
A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-5 and all pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the interest of the second loan of this case 3% per month. However, with respect to the second loan of this case, Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act between the plaintiff and the defendant, and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 28413, Nov. 7, 2017).