beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The judgment on the cause of the claim was made by the Defendant on February 21, 2008, with a loan of KRW 13 million from the borrower C as collateral, and the Plaintiff paid the principal and interest of KRW 18.5 million on behalf of the Defendant on July 24, 2008 on behalf of the Defendant, and wired the Defendant nine times from July 29, 2008 to August 25, 2008 with a total of KRW 9.5 million on nine occasions; the Defendant borrowed the Plaintiff on April 14, 2009 with a loan certificate stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 28 million without due date and due date.” After that, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the above KRW 28,00,000 to the Defendant on July 24, 2009 without dispute between the parties, or by taking account of the overall purport of evidence evidence No. 1, 2, and 31.
As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the content, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the document is denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da1976, 19783, Feb. 15, 2017). According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that an agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on April 14, 2009 on a loan for consumption equivalent to KRW 28 million for each of the above transfers, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and it is difficult to find any evidence to reverse the above fact-finding.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from January 1, 2010 to the date of full payment, which the Plaintiff sought, as a result of the around 2009 when the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to repay to the Defendant.
In this regard, even if the quasi-loan agreement is recognized as a quasi-loan agreement, since the quasi-loan agreement of this case is a loan for consumption with no interest, a claim for interest other than the principal is asserted as groundless, but the damages for delay of the monetary obligation are assessed as damages.