beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) KRW 39,739,504 and the amount from May 18, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 2, 2012, Defendant B and C issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 25,000,000 at face value, and the due date of payment on May 30, 2012, and Defendant D issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 20,000,000 on June 2, 2014, and the due date of payment on September 2, 2014, respectively.
B. From January 31, 2011 to December 17, 2014, Defendant D shall pay interest calculated at the rate of 7% per month from the Plaintiff, and Defendant D shall borrow money from the Plaintiff, and continued to maintain a monetary loan relationship with the Plaintiff with full payment.
(C) The Plaintiff and Defendant D issued a promissory note with the Defendant D’s debt at face value, calculated on December 2, 2012, as of December 2, 2012 at the Plaintiff’s request, with the following: (a) the statement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant D is identical to the statement in the “actual loan” and “amount repaid,” and the “amount repaid,” as of June 2, 2014; and (b) the promissory note was issued with the Defendant D’s debt at face value at that time.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence 2 (including additional number), the purport of whole pleadings
2. Claims and judgments (the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together);
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is the principal lawsuit and seek a payment of loans equivalent to the above promissory note amount from the Defendants.
On the other hand, Defendant B and Defendant C are the obligations of Defendant D, and the above loans are the obligations of Defendant D. The Defendants issued promissory notes at the Plaintiff’s request, and Defendant D paid interest exceeding the Interest Limitation Act to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant D did not have any obligation to pay any more. Defendant D seeks to return, as a counterclaim, the interest paid in excess of the Interest Limitation Act, to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. The highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act between the Plaintiff and Defendant D, which is recognized by the aforementioned evidence.