beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 200,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 22, 2016 to December 7, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 400 million (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Defendant, C, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) with the purchase fund for two parcels of land other than the F in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”). By the end of September 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 550 million from the instant land, and additionally, to receive KRW 200,000 from the instant land.
(hereinafter “instant initial arrangement”). In the purchase of land of the Republic of Korea F, and two parcels (30,000 square meters), the Plaintiff lent KRW 400 million to the Defendant, etc. as the land purchase fund (hereinafter “the Plaintiff, May 27, 2014”), up to December 2014, the amount of KRW 550,000 and KRW 200,00 as the priority to the transfer of the land to the Defendant, etc., and the Defendant, etc. at the time of the occurrence of the problem, prepared a written agreement with the Defendant, etc. as to all the amount of KRW 550,00,000,000 (on the present price) as the civil and criminal liability for the land of KRW 20,00,000 (on the present price), and recognized the legal effect.
B. The Defendant, etc. failed to implement the foregoing arrangement by the end of September 2014, and the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement with the Defendant, etc. on November 1, 2014 as follows:
(hereinafter referred to as “instant secondary arrangement”). C.
However, the Defendant, etc. failed to implement the agreement by December 31, 2014, and the Defendant, on March 3, 2015, prepared a letter of performance stating that the instant loan will be repaid at KRW 600 million by April 3, 2015, and issued it to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant Third Agreement”). D.
E repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 28 million on December 23, 2015, and KRW 200 million on January 21, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 400 million to the Defendant, etc. on the basis of the Plaintiff’s assertion; (b) agreed that the repayment amount was KRW 550 million or KRW 600 million; and (c) such agreement is at the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act at the time.