beta
Text
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 56,977,847 and KRW 48,402,590 among them, per annum from November 30, 2018 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant with a maximum of KRW 50,00,00,000, and with an interest rate of KRW 7.5% per annum (payment on July 14, 2019), and with interest rate of KRW 7.5% per annum (payment on July 11), and with an overdue interest rate of KRW 2.2% per annum within 30 days in arrears, an overdue interest rate of KRW 30,00 per annum; and an overdue interest rate of KRW 5.2% per annum within 30,000 in arrears; and an overdue interest rate of KRW 6.5% per annum within 13.5% per annum; and paid KRW 50,000 in the Defendant’s account.
B. From November 30, 2018, the Defendant lost the benefit of time by delaying the payment of interest under the instant loan agreement.
C. The remaining principal and interest of a loan under the instant loan agreement as of November 29, 2018 remains 48,402,590 won of the remaining principal and interest thereon and damages for delay.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 3, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 56,977,849 under the loan agreement in this case (i.e., the total amount of interest and delay damages up to November 29, 2018) within the scope of the principal and interest of KRW 48,402,59 (i.e., interest and delay damages up to KRW 8,575,259) under the loan agreement in this case (i.e., the total amount of interest and delay damages up to November 29, 2018), calculated at the rate of KRW 56,977,847, and the remaining principal and interest of KRW 48,402,590 as agreed upon by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
3. The defendant's assertion and judgment as to it
A. The defendant's assertion is limited to the lending of the name of the lending when E obtains a loan from the plaintiff upon the request of E in collusion with the plaintiff's employees, and the plaintiff is merely the nominal lender with the intent not to assume the defendant's responsibility as the lender.