beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 480,99,683 as well as 24% per annum from August 8, 2011 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiff shall be determined as interest monthly 4% on March 8, 2011 and KRW 84,030,000,000 on March 24, 2011. In lending without setting the due date, the plaintiff agreed to the effect that if the defendant delays interest for more than two months, the plaintiff may claim all principal and interest at any time. The defendant did not pay interest after the last payment on July 28, 201 as indicated in the notice on the calculation date of the appropriation amount in the attached sheet, and the fact that the plaintiff received 84,030,000 won from the defendant as of July 28, 2011.
B. In addition, among the amount repaid by the Plaintiff, it is 30% per annum pursuant to Article 2(4) and (1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 10925, Jul. 25, 201) and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014).
If the portion exceeding the interest rate of 24% per annum, as the Plaintiff seeks, exceeds the principal and interest calculated on July 28, 201, the balance of the principal and interest on the loan as of July 28, 201 remains only 480,99,683 won as indicated in the calculation table of appropriation amount. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 480,99,683 won as above and 24% per annum from August 8, 2011 to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion is asserted that each of the above loans claim of the plaintiff was extinguished by the completion of prescription, but it is extremely apparent that the period of 10 years has not elapsed from the date of occurrence of each of the above loans claim. Thus, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is within the scope of the above recognition.