beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 90,753,425 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 29, 2010 to October 14, 2016, and the following.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 14, 2010, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed for a loan for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that the Multilater Holdings will borrow KRW 850,000,000 from the Defendant on May 28, 2010, by setting the maturity period of payment of KRW 850,000 from the Defendant as 30% per annum between the Defendant and the Multilater Holdings Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dal Holdings”).
On May 28, 2010, the Defendant delivered KRW 750,000,00 (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the Multilater Holdings on the date of the instant authentic deed preparation, and the Multilater Holdings paid KRW 850,000,000 to the Defendant on May 28, 2010.
B. The Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) with the Plaintiff from the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010 tea85342 to the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order from October 28, 2010 to the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order, and from the next day to the date of full payment, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff 5% interest per annum, and from the next day to the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order, 20% interest per annum. The instant payment order was served on the Multilater on December 7, 2010 and became final and conclusive as it is.
C. Based on the executory exemplification of the instant payment order on September 21, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) as the Seoul Central District Court 2015TTB20590 on September 21, 2015; (b) as the Defendant under a monetary loan agreement between the Defendant and multi-party crowdfunding, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) with respect to money until the Defendant received KRW 195,301,369, the claimed amount of the unjust enrichment return claim, on the ground that the Defendant received the amount exceeding the statutory limit from the Multi-party Holdings on May 14, 2010; and (c) the instant assignment order was served on the Defendant on October 21, 2015, and became final and conclusive on November 17, 2015, respectively.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 6, and arguments.