beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 527,078,289 and the interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from August 24, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts are to be paid interest to the Defendant over the period from September 12, 2013 to June 4, 2015 in excess of the highest interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act, and loans totaling KRW 1,042,860,00,00 as indicated in the column for “additional Loan for Appropriation of Performance” in the attached Table for the Defendant’s performance; and the Defendant’s repayment of each amount to the Plaintiff as indicated in the column for “amount of satisfaction of performance” in the attached Form for the Defendant’s payment of performance does not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized in full view of the respective entries in subparagraphs A through 3 (including each number), B, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments.
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the amount that the Defendant repaid was appropriated by applying the interest rate of 30% per annum under Article 2(1) and (3) of the Interest Limitation Act (Amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014); Article 2 of the Addenda of the Interest Limitation Act (Amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014); Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014); and Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 15, 2014) to the maximum interest rate applied to the Plaintiff’s claim for satisfaction of the obligation from the payment of the obligation from June 15, 2014.
as such, the appropriation was made.
As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum that the Plaintiff seeks from August 24, 2015 to the date of full payment, as agreed upon by the Plaintiff, with the balance of principal KRW 527,078,289, and with respect thereto, from August 24, 2015 to the date of full payment.
B. The defendant's assertion and judgment asserted that since the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and paid interest to the plaintiff, the amount after deducting interest from interest should be recognized as principal.
According to each of the above evidence, the defendant's temporary repayment corresponds to the date and time of payment of the plaintiff's money, but on the other hand, each of the above.