beta
Text
1. Loan charges under a State-owned property loan agreement concluded on December 31, 2004 and February 9, 2010 between the Plaintiff and the primary Defendant.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On December 31, 2004 and February 9, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the preliminary Defendant, which was entrusted with the duties of land management with respect to 333 square meters out of the said ditches (hereinafter “instant land”).
After that, the land management affairs of this case were entrusted to the primary defendant.
B. The instant land is a ditch and a fluor, and the conjunctive Defendant set the officially announced land price of the instant land at seven times or more as much as the neighboring land than that of the same condition (178,000 square meters per square meter for the instant land, and 171,000 square meters per square meter for the remaining 231 square meters for the instant land), and the primary Defendant calculated the rent by applying the erroneous officially announced land price as above.
C. Accordingly, the primary Defendant imposed KRW 23,807,630 on the Plaintiff as the loan charges from January 1, 2006 to April 2, 2013, including KRW 11,297,640, overdue interest 12,509,990.
However, the officially announced land price of the instant land should be set at the same level as the surrounding land, and if calculated accordingly, rent for the instant land is KRW 1,488,675, including principal and delay damages.
Therefore, it is sought to confirm that the loan obligation owed by the Plaintiff to the primary defendant does not exceed KRW 1,488,675.
2. According to the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act, the rent for the land of this case is calculated as “land size ¡¿ individual land price for the relevant year ¡¿ use rate ¡¿ the number of days of use.” The individual land price of this case is either KRW 171,00 or KRW 178,00, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s debt is totaling KRW 23,807,630, if calculated accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties concerned.
Since the officially announced value of the land of this case was determined erroneously, the Plaintiff’s rent to the primary defendant is calculated again as the officially announced value.