2015Da28586 Loans

A

B

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Na9411 Decided April 10, 2015

March 24, 2016

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On January 14, 2009, the lower court determined that on the last day of each month, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant on the last day of each month, the due date of payment on November 30, 2009, and the loan (hereinafter “instant loan”), and that there was no agreement between the parties as to the interest rate, and that the interest rate should be 5% per annum pursuant to Article 379 of the Civil Act.

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, although the loan of this case does not contain a direct statement on the loan of this case, the interest rate shall be paid not later than the 14th day of each month (the last day of each month), and the defendant paid 600,000 won or 5250,000 won each month from January 20, 2009 immediately after the loan of this case to the maturity date, and the defendant, on June 1, 2009, agreed on the interest rate of 50,000 won as 1.5% each month when the defendant borrowed 50,000 won from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "D"), and again, on October 25, 2010, 1000 won as the loan of this case, 2.5% of the loan interest rate of the plaintiff and 1.6% of the loan of this case from the original date for pleading to the date for pleading of this case, but 1.6% of the loan of this case from the original date for pleading.

Nevertheless, the lower court appropriated the Defendant’s repayment of the principal and interest of KRW 100 million per annum from January 14, 2009 to 5% per annum. In so doing, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in holding that the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 10 million to E on January 31, 2013 based on the adopted evidence cannot be acknowledged, and that the amount repaid by the Defendant and E to the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to include interest and delay damages on KRW 200 million on the same day as the instant loan, which the Plaintiff lent to I on the same day as the instant loan. Contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal pointing out the order of reasons for calculating the appropriation amount, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim In-young

Justices Lee Dong-won