beta
Text
1. The plaintiff
A. Defendant B shall pay KRW 94,986,301 as well as 30% per annum from December 7, 2013 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the claim against Defendant B: (a) evidence Nos. 4 and evidence Nos. 5-1 of the judgment as to the claim against Defendant B; and (b) each of the facts that the Plaintiff leased Defendant B, on February 6, 2013, with the payment period until the completion of the building on the ground of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant lease”); and (c) as to the building, the preservation registration was completed on July 8, 2014; and (d) the Plaintiff was a person who received KRW 30,000,000 from Defendant B as interest on December 6, 2013; and (e) Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan Nos. 100,000,000 and interest and delay damages thereon.
However, the Plaintiff asserts that KRW 30,000,000 was appropriated for interest until December 6, 2013, and sought payment of interest and delay damages from December 7, 2013. However, the monthly interest rate of KRW 30,000 (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014) exceeds 30% per annum as stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014), and thus, the agreement on interest of the portion in excess is null and void. As such, the agreement on interest of KRW 24,986,301 [20,00,000] out of KRW 30,000 paid on December 6, 2013 / 30,000 】 304 ±304 ±365 ±365 ±696,99] was appropriated for the remainder of the amount.
Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining principal amounting to KRW 94,986,301 (=100,000,000-5,013,69) and damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum, which is within the limit of the Interest Limitation Act that was enforced at the time of the instant lease from December 7, 2013 to the date of full payment.
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the claim against Defendant C, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5-1 and 2, each of the facts of the instant lease and the fact that Defendant C issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note of KRW 150,000 per share on the same day, and Defendant C as the right holder of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D’s 6/10 on the same day.