beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 as well as 30% per annum from April 1, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 5, 2012, the Defendant: (a) signed and sealed the loan certificate stating that the borrower shall be “the Defendant”; (b) KRW 200,000,000 on March 31, 2013; and (c) paid 30% interest per annum upon the expiration of the payment period; and (d) delivered it to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendant signed and sealed the receipt for KRW 200,000,000 to the Plaintiff and issued it to the Plaintiff.
【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant on March 31, 2013, and at 30% per annum of interest for arrears. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum of the agreed interest rate from April 1, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is the date following the due date.
[At present, Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 1227, Jan. 14, 2014; Effective from July 15, 2014; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), and Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the maximum interest rate under a contract for lending and borrowing money shall be 25% per annum. However, according to Article 2 of the Addenda of the Interest Limitation Act (amended by January 14, 2014), the said amended provision provides that the said provision shall apply from the date of entering into or renewal of the first contract after the enforcement of the said Act, so the said agreement in this case does not violate the Interest Limitation
The defendant asserts that the amount received from the plaintiff is 75,000,000 won, and the defendant is only a person who provides security, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.