beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 596,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from September 25, 2014 to September 15, 2015.
Reasons
Around June 20, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 596,00,000 to the Defendant, who is his mother around June 20, 2007, the purchase fund of KRW 101,000 from Seoul Songpa-gu, D ground E Apartment 101, 308, and on behalf of the Defendant, KRW 596,000 on June 20, 2007, KRW 10,000,000 on December 12, 2007, and KRW 446,00,000 on October 26, 2007, by paying to the former owner of the above real estate, shall be deemed to have been led to a confession by the Defendant under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above loan amounting to KRW 596,000,000 to the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment as to the above loan 596,000,000 won.
However, there is no assertion or evidence as to the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the time for the return of the above loan, and in the case of a loan for consumption with no agreement on the time for return, the lender must demand the return by setting a reasonable period (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act). Thus, the borrower is liable for delay from the time when the lender notified the return of the loan to the Defendant. There is no assertion or evidence as to the fact that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the above loan
However, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have notified the Defendant of the return of the above loan by the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint in this case. Thus, in light of the family relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the progress of the divorce lawsuit conducted between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as well as the relationship between the Defendant and his/her father, the Defendant is 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act, from September 25, 2014 to September 15, 2015, where it is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to repay the loan in this case, in light of the record that the above loan was served as the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint in this case, from March 24, 2014.