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. The fact that the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 25,00,000 to the Defendant from September 4, 2014 to September 6, 2014 does not conflict between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 25,00,000 won with interest rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the provisions of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Oct. 1, 2015) from February 11, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
(2) On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff’s remaining claims for damages for delay exceeding the above recognized scope are without merit). The Defendant asserts that, on October 24, 2014, the said loans were repaid, since the Defendant transferred KRW 150,000,000 to C, and C wired KRW 25,00,000 to the Plaintiff on October 27, 2014, the said loans were repaid.
According to the statement of No. 4, it is recognized that C sent a textbook stating “2500 payment completion” to D, the Plaintiff’s husband, on October 27, 2014.
However, insofar as C testified to the effect that “25 million won, which he/she remitted to the Plaintiff on October 27, 2014, was remitted to the Plaintiff as repayment to the Plaintiff (including KRW 53 million borrowed from May 9, 2014 to October 14, 2014, and interest thereon) of KRW 58 million that he/she borrowed from the Plaintiff, and there was no delivery of the Defendant’s repayment amount to the Plaintiff,” the evidence submitted by the said testimony and the Defendant alone exceeds the fact that C remitted KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff as a repayment for the Plaintiff, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that C has repaid the Defendant’s repayment by delivering KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff under the actual direction of the Defendant, and it is otherwise recognized.