beta
Text
1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s obligation under a monetary loan agreement against the Defendant on May 29, 2015, among the obligations owed by the Plaintiff under a monetary loan agreement.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement with each of the following terms: (a) on July 29, 2017, the term of validity of the loan; and (b) on July 29, 2017, the term of validity of the loan; (c) KRW 300,000,000, respectively (hereinafter “the instant monetary loan agreement”); and (d) on the same day, the money loan agreement based thereon was entered into with the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, 29,925,000, excluding stamp taxes, out of the loan.
B. As the Plaintiff did not pay the principal and interest of the installment repayment under the instant monetary loan agreement, the Defendant filed an application with the Daegu District Court for a payment order against the Plaintiff to seek the payment of the principal and interest of the loan under the instant monetary loan agreement with the Daegu District Court 2016Ra640, Feb. 4, 2016, the said court received an order to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 329,158,11 and KRW 300,000,000, calculated at the rate of 24.8% per annum from January 29, 2016 to the date of full payment, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on March 3, 2016.
C. On March 24, 2016, the Defendant issued a collection order against the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 337,761,750 out of the wage claims against the Plaintiff Company C based on the above finalized payment order, and issued a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff until it. The above seizure and collection order was served to C around that time.
Then, as C deposited KRW 194,863,607 according to the above order of seizure and collection, the distribution procedure was commenced as Busan District Court Branch D branch D (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”) and the Defendant received dividends in the instant distribution procedure around October 25, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. It is against KRW 113,938,545 among the obligations under the monetary loan contract of this case.