beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay 25 million won to the Plaintiff and 25% per annum from June 25, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
If the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a serial number), and the purport of the whole argument is shown, the plaintiff entered into a fund investment contract with the defendant on March 24, 2014, as stated in the separate sheet, and according to the above contract, the defendant was KRW 10 million on March 22, 2014, and KRW 10 million on March 24, 2014, and the same year.
5. Recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the total amount of KRW 30 million to KRW 17.1 million, the Plaintiff demanded the repayment of the investment amount in accordance with Article 3(1)2 of the above contract and received KRW 5 million as principal.
According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from June 25, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the Defendant, as the Plaintiff seeks.
(The interest or delay damages stipulated in the investment contract are 36% per annum, but the plaintiff seeks to pay the amount calculated at the rate of 25% per annum in accordance with the Interest Limitation Act). Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the other party to the investment contract with the plaintiff can not respond to the plaintiff's claim as Dong C, not himself/herself.
However, in the case of a disposal document, such as an attached investment contract, if the authenticity is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document should be recognized unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34666, Sept. 6, 2002). No. 1 submitted by the Defendant cannot be deemed as a clear and acceptable counter-proof that can deny the content of the contract. Rather, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in No. 3, the Defendant’s liability pursuant to the above contract is recognized.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable and acceptable.