beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part of the judgment against the Plaintiff, which ordered payment under paragraph (2) below, shall be revoked.
2...
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence Nos. 1 and 2 in the statement of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (the defendant asserts that the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (each borrowed instrument) was forged, but if the testimony of the witness C at the trial added to the whole purport of the pleadings, all of the authenticitys can be acknowledged) can be acknowledged that the plaintiff loaned KRW 4,000,000 to the defendant at the rate of 10% per annum and December 31, 201, and lent KRW 5,00,000 on September 5, 2012.
B. According to the above facts, with respect to loans of KRW 9,00,000 and its KRW 4,000,000 among the loans to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay 10% per annum of the above agreement from October 30, 201 to January 26, 2016, which is the date the court of first instance rendered a ruling that it is reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation to pay the Plaintiff 4,00,000, and 20% per annum of the year prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, with respect to the agreed interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 5,00 per annum of the year from January 29, 2015, which is the day following the day on which the original payment order of this case was served until January 26, 2016, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum and 20% per annum.
(A) The Plaintiff asserts that an agreement calculated at a rate of 10% per annum for KRW 5,00,000 from September 5, 2012 is sought, but there is no evidence to acknowledge such interest agreement. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff further lent KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant on September 6, 2012, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant on September 6, 2012 according to the evidence No. 3, however, according to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff transferred the remitted money to the Defendant on September 6, 2012, part of KRW 5,00,000 from September 5, 2012.