beta
Text
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 99,233,360 and the interest rate thereon from October 7, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers) and the overall purport of witness D’s testimony and pleading as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendants on February 28, 2014, with the interest rate of 30% per annum, maturity of 27 February 2015. The defendants agreed to jointly and severally pay the above money to the plaintiff. ② The defendants agreed to pay the money to the plaintiff within the scope of interest rate set forth in the Interest Limitation Act if the plaintiff appropriated the money to pay within the scope of interest rate set forth in the attached Table No. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers) and the entire purport of witness D’s testimony and pleading.
According to these facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 9,233,360 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 7, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the last delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff seeks.
B. The Defendants asserted that the monetary loan contract of this case (hereinafter “the monetary loan contract of this case”) prepared in the course of receiving KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff was formally prepared, and the expression of intent stated therein was null and void as a false declaration of agreement and was made an investment that does not substantially guarantee the return of principal, but was completed with the loss incurred, and thus, the Defendants did not bear the obligation to return the principal amount of KRW 100 million.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the monetary loan contract of this case was formally prepared, and the expression of intention stated in the contract of this case is the false declaration of intention as a conspiracy, only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including the serial number) and testimony No. 5 of witness E.
Rather, based on the above evidence, we can find out the following.