beta
Text
1. As to KRW 76,292,658 and KRW 48,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from May 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Defendant received a loan of KRW 95 million from the Plaintiff on November 4, 2008 on the basis of the maturity date of November 3, 2009 and the interest rate of KRW 9 million on November 3, 2009 can be acknowledged by the statement in the evidence No. 1. The fact that the Plaintiff received a repayment of KRW 47 million out of the loan on April 27, 2012 and the fact that the interest rate of KRW 47 million has changed from July 1, 2009 to 8.5% is the Plaintiff.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 76,292,658 won (the principal of 48 million won and interest of 28,292,658 won up to April 30, 2014) and 48,00,000 won out of which are the day following the date of final calculation of interest, to the day of service of the copy of the complaint of this case from May 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014, the agreed interest rate of 8.5% per annum and the amount of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. First, the defendant asserts that the actual debtor of the loan of this case is the controlling shareholder and vice president C, and the plaintiff is well aware of this fact, so the loan agreement in the name of the defendant is null and void by a false agreement.
In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness D, the loan of this case is established under the plans of the defendant and C for the repayment of debts to the defendant, the decision of whether to grant a loan to the plaintiff's employee is made by the representative director or the vice-president (C) decision, the loan of 47 million won out of the loan is not by the defendant but by C, and is deemed to have been made by the defendant, and the loan agreement is not made but by C, but it is not made, but it is not made, and C said that the loan was not made. At the time of retirement of the defendant, C said that the loan under the name of the defendant was made by the defendant to D, who
However, the above evidence and the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 can be identified as follows.