beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B: (a) KRW 12 million and its related thereto from May 2, 2017 to August 7, 2018; (b) 5% per annum.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that “Around June 2013, Defendant C and D sold the business facilities of the marina area to Defendant C and D, and the purpose of the loan for consumption is to sell the said sales price, and Defendant C paid KRW 45.92 million, and Defendant D decided to pay KRW 40 million up to September 30, 2014, respectively,” and the said Defendants are deemed to have led to confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, with respect to the Plaintiff, Defendant C is obligated to pay each of the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 1, 2014, which is the day following the due date for payment, to the day when the duplicate of the complaint in this case was served on the said Defendants (in the case of Defendant C, December 18, 2017, and in the case of Defendant D, April 28, 2017), 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the day of full payment.
2. According to the evidence No. 1 of the claim No. 1 against Defendant B, it is recognized that Defendant B prepared and executed a loan certificate with the principal amount of KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2014.
In addition to the above facts, considering the purport of subparagraph 1-1-3 and the entire arguments, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant B prepared the above loan certificate in the course of promising the Plaintiff to return money to the Plaintiff at the time in consideration of the settlement details in the existing monetary transaction relationship between the parties.
Defendant B borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff and paid interest at a high rate for a long time, but it was inevitable for the Plaintiff to find and request the preparation of the loan.
'' asserts to the effect that ‘' is.
However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant (No. 1-3) is merely a statement that Defendant B transferred money to the Plaintiff, etc. before preparing the above loan certificate) by the Plaintiff’s coercion, etc., even though there was no money to be settled between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff at the time.