beta
Text
1. The defendant is 5% per annum from October 1, 2008 to October 26, 2017 to the plaintiff.
Reasons
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant's "10 million won to the plaintiff on September 19, 2008 shall be repaid to the plaintiff on December 26, 2007 by September 30, 2008 in the amount borrowed for the purchase of land outside C and 11 parcels of land.
“In fact, it is recognized that the statement of payment was written, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 2.4 million ( = KRW 13.5 million from the Defendant’s obligor D) among the above money, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 7.6 million remaining due and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 1, 2008 to October 26, 2017, which is the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
As to this, the defendant alleged that the payment rejection was invalid as a false conspiracy because the plaintiff shows the plaintiff's creditors and teared, but it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the evidence No. 19 submitted by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
In addition, although the defendant asserts that the debtor of the payment note is not the representative director B, it is reasonable to view the debtor of the payment note as the defendant in light of the contents and form of the payment note, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.
In addition, the Defendant asserted that, instead of paying the debt to the Plaintiff, the Defendant succeeded to the notarial deed of promissory note amounting to KRW 150 million in face value to be received from D, and that the Defendant repaid KRW 11.9 million to the Plaintiff via F. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was to substitute the above succession for the repayment of the Plaintiff’s debt.
It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the above money to the Plaintiff through F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, so this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
Then, the plaintiff's objection.