beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 350,000,000 and KRW 200,000 among the Plaintiff, respectively, shall be KRW 150,000 from March 21, 2014, and KRW 150,00,000.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant by setting the interest rate of KRW 200 million per month and three months after the due date; (b) obtained the delivery of each of the instant art works from the Defendant as security; and (c) received interest of KRW 4 million per month until February 2014.
B. On July 11, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 150 million to the Defendant by setting the interest rate of KRW 2% per month and two months after the due date for reimbursement. As a security, the Plaintiff received the art works of the Defendant as indicated in the attached Table 2 from the Defendant, and received interest of KRW 3 million per month up to February 2014.
[Ground of recognition] 1 to 5 evidence, 5 to 6 evidence
2. According to the above facts finding as to the Plaintiff’s claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum under the agreement from March 21, 2014 to March 12, 2014, as the Plaintiff seeks against the Plaintiff as to KRW 350,000,000,000 loan of KRW 20 million as of June 20, 2013, and KRW 150,000,000,000,000 from July 11, 2013, and KRW 200,000,000,000 among them, as the Plaintiff seeks.
(hereinafter “instant loan obligations”) .3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that C actually used the instant loan with the Plaintiff’s consent was discharged from liability, but it is not sufficient to recognize the existence of the evidence as to the testimony of the witness C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. The Defendant asserted that the obligation to repay the instant loan and the Plaintiff’s obligation to return each art work described in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 are in the relationship of simultaneous performance.
However, a security offered as a security for an obligation may be claimed for the return of the secured obligation after the repayment of the secured obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu29351, Oct. 13, 1989).