beta
Text
1. Defendant D shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 1, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. On July 6, 2010, the Plaintiff did not set the maturity period of KRW 30,000,000 to Defendant D on July 6, 2010, and the agreed interest rate was set at 12% per annum and lent as 12% per annum does not conflict between the parties.
According to the above facts, Defendant D is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 30,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 1, 2015 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, at the request of the Plaintiff, after one month from February 2015, which appears to be a considerable period for repayment in light of the date and time, circumstances, amount, etc. of the loan from around February 2015, when the Defendant received a peremptory notice of repayment from the Plaintiff.
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B
A. The Plaintiff asserted by proxy the right of representation as to the loan of this case on the premise that the principal debtor of the loan of this case as stated in paragraph (1) (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) is Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”).
The evidence revealed that Defendant B is the principal debtor of the loan in this case contains evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence). However, in full view of the results of the personal examination and the overall purport of the pleadings with respect to Defendant D, there is no proof as to the fact that the person who prepared and delivered the part of Defendant B (representative E) among the above loan certificates is Defendant D, and there is no proof as to the fact that Defendant D was duly authorized by Defendant B, the representative director of Defendant B, at the time of preparation and delivery of the above loan certificate.
Therefore, the above loan certificate cannot be used as evidence for a monetary loan contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant B, because it is difficult to recognize the authenticity of the above loan certificate.
In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize the above facts only with the descriptions of Gap 2 and 4, and there is a different evidence.