beta
Text
1. As to KRW 25,145,205 and KRW 170,00,00 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 225,145,205 from October 16, 2015 to June 21, 2017.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. On July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 170,00,00 to the Defendant and to receive a refund of KRW 250,000,000 from the Defendant during the repayment period. (ii) Even if the excess portion exceeds the interest calculated with the highest interest rate of KRW 80,00,000,000 paid in excess of KRW 177,000,000 under the Interest Limitation Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest calculated with the maximum interest rate of KRW 170,00,000 and KRW 170,000,000,000 from July 2, 2014 to December 12, 2016 (the date of service of the copy of the complaint of this case) plus the interest rate of KRW 104,404,674,000 calculated with the maximum interest rate of KRW 20,000,000 from July 214, 2014
B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was to lend KRW 250,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant prepared a loan certificate, but in fact, the Plaintiff provided a loan to the Defendant only KRW 170,000,000, and there was no interest agreement.
Therefore, the defendant should return only 170,000,000 won to the plaintiff, and even if the interest should be paid, the interest rate shall not exceed 5% per annum, which is the statutory interest rate.
2. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 170 million to the Defendant as a loan on July 2, 2014 does not conflict between the parties.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the defendant prepared a loan certificate with a loan amount of KRW 250 million and the due date of repayment as of December 3, 2014 to the plaintiff on July 2, 2014; and the defendant prepared a letter of credit extension as of May 17, 2015 and a letter of credit extension as of October 15, 2015 to the due date of repayment as of July 30, 2015 and a letter of credit extension as of August 18, 2015 to the due date of repayment as of October 15, 2015.
If so, the plaintiff is the defendant 17.7.