beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 62,500,000 for the Plaintiff and 18% per annum from October 10, 2018 to March 4, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 13, 2018, the Plaintiff spent the opening capital, including the cost of purchasing facilities, at the time the Defendant opened the “E” located in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu C and D (hereinafter “E”).
B. On July 31, 2018, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70,000,00 of the principal from the Defendant as the instant restaurant start-up cost (a security deposit of KRW 30,000,000, facility investment cost of KRW 40,000). From September 1, 2018, the Plaintiff paid interest of KRW 18% per annum, and the due date of payment shall be December 31, 2018, and the Plaintiff received a certificate of borrowing from the Defendant again on September 10, 2018, that “the principal shall be KRW 62,50,000,000, the interest of KRW 18% per annum from October 10, 2018, and the due date of payment shall be KRW 40,000 (hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowing”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 12, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 18% per annum (payment from October 10, 2018 to December 31, 2018) and interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum for the Plaintiff from October 10, 2018 to March 4, 2019 sought by the Plaintiff, which is the initial date of the agreement.
The Plaintiff sought interest payment from September 1, 2018, which is the day following the date on which the instant loan certificate was drawn up, but the Plaintiff agreed to receive interest on the instant loan from October 10, 2018. As such, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.
B. The defendant's assertion 1 should be resolved as a matter of property division due to the fact that the money received from the plaintiff was donated for the maintenance and development of a de facto marital relationship or due to a de facto marital relationship. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with. The loan certificate of this case is strong pressure of the plaintiff.