beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 32,527,00 and the amount of KRW 31,369,956 from November 29, 2018 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent 46 million won to the defendant on July 25, 2015 as interest rate of 3% per month, and lent 10 million won on August 21, 2015 as interest rate of 4% per month, and the plaintiff is a person who has received money as stated in the "amount of repayment" table of the amount appropriated in the separate sheet of calculation for the attached amount from the defendant. The defendant's repayment amount is deemed to have been paid in the order of the highest interest rate prescribed in the Interest Limitation Act, and if he/she appropriated the amount in the order of principal, it is clear in the calculation of the facts such as the statement of calculation of the amount appropriated for the principal and interest rate until November 28, 2018.
For the convenience of calculation, the repayment of KRW 1,248,737 on November 28, 2018 shall be deemed to have been made: Provided, That interest shall not be KRW 4,248,736, but shall be KRW 4,248,737.
Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 32,527,00 won among the total principal and interest of 36,542,330 won, which the plaintiff seeks as the starting point of calculation until November 28, 2018, and interest or delay damages calculated by 24% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act from November 29, 2018 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of 31,369,956 won.
The Plaintiff claimed interest of 24% per annum from November 29, 2018 on 32,527,000 won, including interest, and damages for delay from November 29, 2018, but there is no basis to recognize it.
2. The Defendant’s assertion and judgment alleged that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay all payments after February 1, 2018 to the principal. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim is partly accepted within the scope of the above recognition.