beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the witness testimony and the whole pleadings of the court of first instance C, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 20,000,000 won to the defendant on March 23, 2007 as the due date for payment on June 22, 2007 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the annual rate of 15% per annum as provided by the Civil Act from June 23, 2007 to May 23, 2017, which is obviously the due date for payment, from June 23, 2007 to the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and from the following day to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. First, on March 23, 2007, the Defendant concluded the instant loan agreement with C, which was delegated by the Plaintiff with the authority to receive the instant loan, and on November 6, 2009, paid all the instant loan to C, which was delegated by the Plaintiff with the authority to receive the instant loan. Thus, the Defendant’s defense that the instant loan was extinguished.
It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff delegated C with the authority regarding the loan contract of this case or the authority regarding the receipt of the repayment amount, only on the basis of the descriptions of Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of branch numbers). Since there is no other evidence to support this, the above defense of the Defendant is without merit without the need to review it.
B. Next, even if the Defendant did not do so, at the time of the instant lending contract, the Plaintiff had formed an economic community, such as operating a health source located in Songpa-gu Seoul as well as the Plaintiff’s wife at the time of the instant lending contract. Moreover, on March 23, 2007, the Defendant lent money used as a joint living cost or a registration fee for children to the Defendant through C, which was incurred in the conduct of a couple’s family life as a community.