beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 39 million and its KRW 19 million, the Defendant shall be from July 13, 2007 to KRW 20 million.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is due for the defendant on May 12, 2007, and twenty-eight million won on May 12, 2007
7. A loan with interest of KRW 2 million (hereinafter “No. 1 loan”) was made on September 20, 2007 by setting the due date for repayment of KRW 20 million as of October 15, 2007 (hereinafter “No. 2 loan”).
B. The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff the first loan amount of KRW 8 million on the date of the repayment, KRW 3 million on November 12, 2008, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, entry of Eul evidence 17, witness C's testimony, purport of whole pleading
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 39 million won [the amount obtained by deducting the principal and interest of the loan 10 million won] 20 million won (the amount obtained by deducting the principal and interest of the loan 10 million won from the principal and interest of the loan 30 million won) and 19 million won from July 13, 2007, which is the following day after the due date for payment, with respect to 20 million won from October 16, 2007 to April 26, 2018, which is the date the judgment of each case, from October 16, 2007 to April 26, 2018, damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act concerning the promotion, etc. of litigation from the following day to the date of full payment.
B. The Defendant alleged that all of the loans of this case against the Plaintiff were repaid by the Plaintiff, but it is not sufficient to recognize the Defendant’s allegation that there were additional payments, other than KRW 1,100, which the Defendant deemed to have been repaid by the Defendant. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
The defendant's defense of repayment is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.