beta
Text
1. The Defendant: 6% per annum from August 1, 2016 to May 23, 2018, and May 24, 2018, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause for the claim, the Defendant, on November 16, 2015, decided to repay KRW 192,00,000 to the Plaintiff until November 16, 2016, and it can be acknowledged that the Defendant prepared each letter (Evidence No. 1; hereinafter referred to as “each letter of this case”) that requires the Plaintiff to pay KRW 1,00,00 as interest per month from April 2016, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff four times from July 20, 2016 to November 21, 2016, as the Plaintiff paid KRW 4 million (one million x 4 million).
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as requested by the plaintiff within the limit of the agreed interest rate from August 1, 2016 to May 23, 2018, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from August 1, 2016 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.
(4) The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, since the defendant claimed the payment of interest on the above agreed amount from April 1, 2016. However, as seen earlier, since the defendant paid interest on the fourth-month interest on each of the instant notes to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim for this part is rejected.)
2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion is that since each of the documents of this case was prepared according to the plaintiff's coercion even though all of the obligations which serve as the basis of each of the documents of this case were fully repaid, the plaintiff's claim based on this cannot be accepted. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge this only with the statement of evidence No. 1, and
Therefore, the defendant's argument is not correct.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is legitimate within the above scope of recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.