beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as 8.4% per annum from December 2, 2015 to October 3, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent the period of repayment to the defendant on May 20, 2010 by the interest rate of February 28, 2016 and 0.7% per month (hereinafter "the loan of this case") to the defendant on May 20, 2010, and the defendant paid interest on the loan of this case to the plaintiff by December 1, 2015 and did not pay interest thereafter. According to the above facts found, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff interest and delay damages from December 2, 2015, which is the last day following the date of the payment of interest, unless there are special circumstances.
B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff only used the passbook in the name of the Defendant while lending KRW 70 million to C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Defendant paid interest on the instant loan several times to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 70 million and the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 8.4% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate, from December 2, 2015 to October 3, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s intent to claim the payment of the instant loan to the Defendant (=0.7% per month x 12 months), and the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment
2. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground. It is so decided as per Disposition.