beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s loans and penalty cases against the Defendant’s District Court in Seoyang-si, Seoul District Court 2018j107.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 28, 2017, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 30 million to Plaintiff A; (b) agreed to receive KRW 1.5 million each month from April 10, 2017 to November 10, 2018 (hereinafter “instant loan”); (c) concluded an agreement to supply alcoholic beverages to Plaintiff A on the same day (hereinafter “instant alcoholic beverage supply agreement”); and (d) in the event that Plaintiff A fails to repay the loan at one time, the Defendant may terminate the instant alcoholic beverage supply agreement; and (c) was paid 20% loans with penalty; and (d) Plaintiff B jointly and severally guaranteed all the obligations of Plaintiff A.
B. After November 22, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiffs for payment order seeking payment of the remaining loan amounting to KRW 19.5 million among the loan granted under the instant loan and penalty amounting to KRW 6 million under the liquor supply agreement with the Plaintiffs on January 16, 2018.
(F) On January 23, 2018, the Plaintiff jointly and severally paid to the Defendant the amount of KRW 25,000,000 per annum from the day following the delivery date of the payment order to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”), and on April 3, 2018, the instant payment order was finalized on April 3, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1: (a) Plaintiff A did not pay part of the instant loan that was agreed to be repaid in installments; (b) on March 2018, there was an agreement with the Defendant on the deferment of payment due, and thus, the Defendant did not lose the benefit of time; and (c) the remaining loan repayment period has not yet arrived.
In addition, the defendant has lawfully terminated the contract on the ground that the plaintiff violated the liquor supply agreement of this case.