beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court of the first instance is citing this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion added by the Defendants in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendants’ assertion ① did not set the interest agreed upon at the time of borrowing on August 27, 2013, and was subject to investment KRW 50 million.
In addition, it is unreasonable to recognize the whole amount of the plaintiff's claim that excluded the supplementary application of the Interest Limitation Act.
② It is difficult to view that an agreement was made on interest for delay damages after the due date for payment of KRW 50 million on August 27, 2013.
③ In the case of Defendant C, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant had an intent to guarantee the Defendant’s interest in arrears equivalent to the maximum interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act.
B. Determination 1) ① As to the assertion, inasmuch as the document of disposition is deemed to have been authentic, barring any special reason to deny the probative value of the document of disposition, it is not allowed to deny the probative value of the document of disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu10484, Nov. 10, 1989). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to each of the statements in Articles 2 and 4, the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 is clear that all of them are a disposition document that is recognized to have been authentic, and they are stated that they are “a tea” and the Defendants are “a tea,” and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is any special reason to deny the probative value of the document of disposition. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was a loan of KRW 50 million and KRW 25 million paid to the Defendants. In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was a loan of KRW 127,200,00.
§ 2.1.