beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 194,660,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from January 16, 2014 to November 24, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant and his husband, up to March 10, 1998, set up a cash custody certificate with the purport that the Defendant and his husband shall settle the borrowed money from the Plaintiff up until March 10, 1998, and deliver to the Plaintiff a cash custody certificate with the purport that the custody of KRW 14,2460,000,000 and KRW 70,000 to March 21, 1998.
(B) The defendant alleged that each of the above cash custody certificates was made by the plaintiff's coercion, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
From December 28, 2004 to September 17, 2013, the Defendant and C paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 17.8 million as indicated in the “current Status of Payments” in the attached Form.
C. On January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant and C to repay the loan by January 15, 2014 by content-certified mail, and the mail was delivered to the Defendant and C on January 9, 2014.
C died on March 22, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, 7, Eul evidence 4, 5, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 19,466 million won per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 16, 2014, which is the day following the due date for the performance of the obligation, to November 24, 2015, and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until November 24, 2015, 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, to the day of full payment.
Although the Plaintiff alleged that the above KRW 17.8 million was paid as interest, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement to pay interest on the above loan, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the above KRW 17.8 million was appropriated for the repayment of principal.
In addition, the plaintiff's KRW 140 million from March 11, 1998, and KRW 70 million from March 11, 1998.