beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,200,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 15, 2016 to October 12, 2016.
Reasons
1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition and the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the branch numbers, if any), the following facts are recognized:
A. On January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant KRW 50 million, KRW 25 million on January 8, 2014, KRW 10 million on March 20, 2014, KRW 50,000,000 on March 20, 2014, and KRW 51.2 million on January 27, 2016, without setting the due date.
B. From the end of January 2014 to January 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 120,000 per month from the Defendant as interest, and received KRW 5 million from the end of January 2016 to appropriated the principal.
2. According to the above facts of determination and conclusion, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 46.2 million (=51.2 million - 5 million) to the plaintiff and delay damages.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case until the day of complete payment. However, in the case of money loan for which no time for repayment has been fixed, the lender shall notify the lender of the repayment within a reasonable period pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act, and the borrower shall be liable for delay from the time when the lender notified the repayment of the loan of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the loan of this case before the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, it shall be deemed that the maturity of July 14, 2016 when the period deemed reasonable from July 7, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint
Therefore, from July 15, 2016, the following day after the due date for repayment for the remaining 46.2 million won to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s objection against the existence or scope of the obligation to perform is deemed reasonable and reasonable.