beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) from August 19, 2015, with respect to Plaintiff A’s KRW 100,000, KRW 190,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the following facts in light of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2-1, 2-4, and 3-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings. A
Plaintiff
A lent KRW 100,00,000 to the Defendant on December 24, 2009 and KRW 50,000,000 on January 13, 2010, and KRW 100,000 on November 14, 2009, KRW 40,000 on November 17, 2009, KRW 10,000,000 on November 18, 209, and KRW 10,000 on November 18, 200, KRW 30,000 on November 19, 200, KRW 2000 on loan to the Defendant; and KRW 30,00,000 on November 20, 200, KRW 30,00 on loan 10,00 on May 20, 209; and
B. On February 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 290,000,000 from the Plaintiffs on February 1, 2010; and (b) prepares and affixes its name and seal to the Plaintiffs in order to ensure the receipt (storage) of the said amount.
I prepared and issued a cash custody certificate stating the phrase "."
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to return the loan of KRW 100,000,000 to the plaintiff A, and the loan of KRW 190,00,000 to the defendant B.
B. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant failed to repay each of the above loans, unlike the commitment, and sought payment of the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from February 1, 2010 to the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.
This seems to the effect that each of the above loans claims damages for delay after February 1, 2010.
However, there is no assertion or evidence as to the fact that the parties agreed on the time for the return of each of the above loans between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Thus, the defendant cannot be held liable for delay of payment because the defendant failed to observe the time for the return of each of the above loans.
On the other hand, in the case of a loan for consumption without an agreement on the time of repayment, the lender must demand the return by fixing a reasonable period pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Code, so it is reasonable from the time when the lender demands the return.