beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,782,884 and the amount of KRW 14,136,713 from February 4, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a secondhand loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant as a security on the instant secondhand car as follows with respect to the payment of the purchase price of the Cub used cars (hereinafter “the instant secondhand car”).
- Loan amount: 29,900,000 - Loan period: 36 months: 22.9% per annum - Repayment Method: Interest equal (1,155,863 won per annum) - Delay interest rate: 29% per annum as the obligation to repay the loan under the loan contract of this case has not been fulfilled. Thus, the interest on the loan was lost on July 15, 2015.
The details of the principal and interest of the loan unpaid as of February 3, 2016 according to the instant loan contract are as follows.
- The remaining principal: 14,136,713 - The remaining interest (before loss of due interest): 1,384,224 - The remaining interest (after loss of due interest): 145,615 - Compensation for delay: 116,32 - Total 15,904,487 / No dispute over the ground for recognition)
2. On the grounds delineated below, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid principal and interest of loan and delay damages on the unpaid principal and interest of loan under the instant loan agreement.
① The Defendant is a party to the instant loan agreement.
② In domestic affairs, the Defendant is not a party to the instant loan contract, and even if Nonparty C entered into the instant loan contract by using the Defendant’s name, the Defendant, at the time, granted the Nonparty C a certificate of seal impression and a certificate of seal impression with respect to the establishment of a corporation, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that Nonparty C was exercising the Defendant’s authority as the Defendant himself, such as going through a normal process of identification, and thus, the provision on the representation of opinion beyond the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act should be applied by analogy
(3).