beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff A, KRW 90,00,000, and KRW 60,000,000, and each of the above amounts.
Reasons
In full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, 2, 3, and 4 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, 3, and 4, on August 16, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 90,000,000 to Defendant D on March 16, 2006, and the Plaintiff B agreed to pay KRW 60,000,000 to the interest name of KRW 150,000,000 until the due date. Defendant E loaned the obligation to the Plaintiffs, and Defendant E loaned the obligation to the Plaintiffs, and around April 2006, the fact that the Plaintiffs received KRW 10,00,000 from Defendant D with payment of KRW 10,000.
According to the above facts of recognition, the interest rate set at the time of the loan agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants on August 16, 2005 is 60% from August 16, 2005 to March 16, 2006, and the interest rate is set at the rate of 30% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act from June 30, 2007, until the date the Interest Limitation Act (Law No. 8322, Mar. 29, 2007, enacted from June 30, 2007) enters into force.
However, the plaintiffs applied 30% per annum from August 16, 2005, the above lending date to December 15, 2005 15,041,095 150,000,000 X by applying interest rate of 15,00 to December 15, 2005.
0. Inasmuch as 3X 122/365 appropriated each of the above lending principal and each of the above above amounts are claimed for interest funds calculated by the ratio of 30%, which is the limitation rate under the Interest Limitation Act, within the scope of the above agreement, from December 16, 2005 to the date of full payment, with respect to the above lending principal and each of the above amounts, it shall be governed by the plaintiffs' claim.
Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff Eul 90,000,000 won with 60,000,000 won and 30% interest rate per annum from December 16, 2005 to the date of full payment, as the plaintiffs seek from December 16, 2005 to the date of full payment. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for the performance of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.