beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant C, as well as Defendant C, at the rate of 15% per annum from May 26, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From November 6, 2014 to January 10, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 144,950,000 to Defendant C for a total of nine occasions (hereinafter “instant loan”); and around December 29, 2014, Defendant C received reimbursement of KRW 60,000,000 out of the instant loan.
B. On January 21, 2015, Defendant D, as the husband of Defendant C, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of performance that “D, with respect to the loan of this case, promised to pay at least two million won per three years every three years every three years every three years thereafter.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2 (each note, defendant D's defense that this document was made by the plaintiff's husband's return and intimidation, but no evidence exists to acknowledge this), and the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of determination, Defendant D is recognized to have agreed with the Plaintiff to pay a total of KRW 85,00,000 for three years for the repayment of the loan in this case. Thus, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid loan amount of KRW 84,950,00 (= KRW 144,950,000 - 60,000) and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 26, 2016 to the day of full payment, and Defendant D is jointly and severally liable with Defendant C to pay the above amount of KRW 84,950,000,00, respectively, as the Plaintiff seeks, if January 21, 2018.
(3) The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is a lawsuit for future performance, and since the defendant D did not pay all the money while disputing the existence of the obligation, it cannot expect the voluntary performance even if the due date arrives, it is recognized that it is necessary to claim in advance. 3. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is reasonable, it is decided as per Disposition by citing all of the claims.