beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,200,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 30, 2015 to June 10, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff, around June 26, 2015, issued a discount on one of the promissory notes (C) with a face value of KRW 28.2 million (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant, as above, issued a cash loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with the purport that the Plaintiff would pay the instant promissory notes by September 29, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant promissory notes”).
According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 28,200,000 won with 5% per annum from September 30, 2015, which is the day following the date on which the loan was due, to June 10, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant received the Promissory Notes from Nonparty D and E as the construction cost. It would allow a discount of promissory Notes after deducting five million won and interest from the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff.
A promissory note has been paid 90,000 won as interest.
The instant promissory note discount asserts that Nonparty D’s obligations related to the instant promissory note should be settled.
According to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that Nonparty D prepared a cash loan certificate with the content that Nonparty D would repay KRW 28,200,000,000, which is the amount equivalent to the borrowed amount related to the Promissory Notes of this case, around June 29, 2015.
However, the mere fact that Nonparty D prepared a cash loan certificate stating that Nonparty D would repay KRW 28,200,000,000, does not exempt the Defendant from the Defendant’s obligation to repay the borrowed money according to the instant loan certificate. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is rejected.
3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition.