beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 43,747,945 and KRW 40,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall start from July 1, 2009 to November 11, 2018.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff, on March 9, 2009, was due for the payment of KRW 40 million to the defendant on March 9, 2009.
3. The loan was made on April 3, 2009 by the Defendant, including interest, to the Plaintiff on April 3, 2009.
6. By the end of 30.30, an agreement was made to pay KRW 45,000,000.
【Ground for recognition】 There is no dispute
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to Article 2 of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 10925, Jul. 25, 2011) and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014), a contractual interest rate exceeding 30% per annum is null and void, and the same applies to cases where the contractual interest rate is excessive and the damages for delay calculated by the agreed rate is calculated.
From March 9, 2009 to June 30, 2009, interest rate of 30% per annum on loans of 40,000,000 won and delay damages of 3,747,945 won (=40,00,000 x 0.3 x 114/365 x less than KRW 43,747,945 and the principal amount of loans of 40,000,000 won from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2009. Thus, with respect to interest and delay damages of 40,000,000 won, the Defendant is liable to pay 15% per annum from July 1, 2009 to July 11, 2018, the date following the due date for payment of the instant payment order, to which the Defendant shall pay 15% per annum interest and delay damages from July 1, 2009 to the date following the due date.
B. The defendant asserts that C had refunded its principal and interest to C through intimidation for a few years, and that C had received a loan from the third financial right to repay its principal and interest to C, which eventually led to the application for individual rehabilitation.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts alleged, and the defendant's assertion is without merit without further review.
3. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is within the scope of the above recognition.