beta
Text
1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 242,00,000 as well as 25% per annum from August 16, 2013 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 2005, Defendant C demanded that the Plaintiff lend KRW 200 million to purchase a new building that had been built on the land in Kimhae-si (hereinafter in this case’s land and building) and sell in lots and lease business.
Japan: The repayment date of KRW 220,00,000: If the repayment commitment is not implemented on June 16, 2005, I would not raise an objection even if I would take a legal measure against B-owned real estate in Jin-si.
Amount of redemption when a reimbursement undertaking is not performed: Interest at 242,00,000 won after July 16, 2005: 2.5% per month: A joint and several sureties:
B. On May 17, 2005, the Plaintiff and Defendant C prepared a cash custody certificate as follows (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”). On the other hand, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million on May 19, 2005 to the Defendant B’s account, the wife of Defendant C, and KRW 100 million on May 26, 2005, respectively.
C. Meanwhile, Defendant C established F Co., Ltd. on May 23, 2005 (hereinafter “non-party company”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land in the name of the said company on May 24, 2005, and the registration of ownership preservation on July 27, 2005, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 3-1, Evidence No. 9, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. According to the above facts-based facts A and B as to the cause of the claim, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 242,00,000 with the cash custody certificate of this case and interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from August 16, 2013 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
B. As to the assertion that the determination on Defendant C’s assertion and defense is null and void, Defendant C is based on the name of the Plaintiff in the instant land and building so that it can recover KRW 242 million in total from the Plaintiff’s investment and investment return, not the amount of loan but the amount of KRW 200 million received from the Plaintiff.