beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from February 10, 2015 to August 26, 2015, and the following.
Reasons
1. The fact that the plaintiff joined the fraternity operated by the defendant from 2004 and received the fraternity. In the process, the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1.2 million on June 24, 2004 until August 15, 2004. The payment date was extended on January 12, 2005.
(B) The agreement was made to pay KRW 20 million on August 24, 2006 by November 24, 2006, and ③ February 15, 2008 to pay KRW 30 million by April 30, 2008.
On the other hand, on December 5, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from C at the interest rate of 3% per month. The Defendant agreed to repay the principal and interest by June 30, 2009 as the repayment of each of the above agreed amounts, but the Defendant did not entirely perform the above obligation.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In light of the facts of the above recognition, it is difficult to view that the Defendant separately bears the Plaintiff the obligation to pay the agreed amount of KRW 20 million as of January 12, 2005 and the agreed amount of KRW 40 million as of December 5, 2008. There is no evidence to support that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 20 million as of January 24, 2005 to the Plaintiff around January 2005.
The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 70 million won a total of the agreed amounts of the above recognition (=20 million won) and to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, which is obviously following the day after February 10, 2015 on which the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case is the day after February 10, 2015, where it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation.