beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 47,757,505 and the amount of KRW 43,676,82 among them, from December 11, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant on June 5, 2014, the term of the loan expires on June 5, 2019; the agreed rate is 4.53% per annum; the rate is 4.53% per annum; the delayed interest rate is less than three months; and 8% per annum for not less than three months; and the Plaintiff agreed to lose the benefit of the term and pay the balance of the loan and the delay damages if the repayment of the principal and interest is overdue at least once.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
The Defendant lost the benefit of time by delaying the repayment of principal and interest of the loan, and as of December 10, 2015, the principal and interest of the loan of this case were KRW 47,757,505 (i.e., principal amount of KRW 43,676,82; KRW 4,080,683). The Plaintiff’s delay rate from the base date to the closing date of argument of this case is 15% per annum.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from December 11, 2015 to the date of full payment, as to the principal amount of KRW 47,757,505 of the instant loan and the principal amount of KRW 43,676,822 of the loan, which is the day following the calculation of the last damages for delay.
Therefore, the defendant asserts that since the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation as the Changwon District Court 2015da37465, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, even if the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation in the relevant procedure, the lawsuit in this case is not affected by the individual rehabilitation procedure prior to confirmation of individual rehabilitation claim in the relevant procedure, and even if the judgment in this case is rendered, it cannot be viewed that there is any disadvantage in preparing and approving the rehabilitation plan in the future, and therefore, the defendant's argument
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.