1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The Plaintiff claimed to the Defendant for the payment of the agreed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from August 16, 2012, the scope of the judgment of this court. The court of first instance ruled that all of the claims for the loan was accepted and the damages for delay was reduced to 15% per annum.

Therefore, since only the defendant filed an appeal and the plaintiff did not file an appeal, the part in excess of the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the damages for delay on the above loan exceeds the scope of the adjudication in this Court.

Facts of recognition

On July 16, 2012, between the Plaintiff, Defendant, C, etc., the following loan certificates (hereinafter “instant loan certificates”) were drawn up.

The loan period of Japanese gold n.e. 8,000,000) shall be from July 16, 2012 to August 15, 2012.

The interest rate on the loan certificate shall be the rate per annum.

B: C surety: With respect to D’s lending of KRW 8 million from the Plaintiff, the Defendant was convicted of 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 1 year of suspension of execution on the ground that: (a) the Defendant forged a certificate of borrowing KRW 8 million from the Plaintiff, and affixed a seal with which the name he/she was in his/her custody is unknown; and (b) he/she received KRW 7.2 million from the Plaintiff, excluding the interest, and was aware of his/her intent or ability to repay to the Plaintiff by exercising the forged certificate.

[Grounds for recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings by the plaintiff is the defendant who has asserted the purport of the whole pleadings. Since the plaintiff borrowed KRW 7.2 million from the plaintiff or fraudulently acquired the same amount by deceiving the plaintiff, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 7.2 million with the repayment of the loan or

The plaintiff claimed a loan at the complaint, but on July 18, 2016, the plaintiff asserted that it is a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment due to illegal acts in the preparatory documents prepared on July 18, 2016.