beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120 million and 25% per annum from December 31, 2013 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B borrowed the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff from September 11, 2012, in the name of Defendant C, Defendant D, a joint and several surety, and “40 million won.”
I will pay the above amount by December 30, 2013.
The interest shall be determined in three copies per month.
The loan certificate stating that “the above amount shall be received by the debtor without any framework on the one hand and agreed as follows.”
Principal shall be KRW 20 million on November 21, 2012, KRW 20 million on December 20, 2012, KRW 20 million on December 20, 2012, and KRW 40 million on February 27, 2013.
(zb)payment of interest shall be made for each month recognized as four copies;
"A loan certificate of this case" or "a loan certificate of this case" or "a loan certificate of this case"
1) Each entry into and issuance to B. [The grounds for recognition: Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and 10
2. Assertion and determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant B settled the principal and interest remaining after lending money from time to time from December 13, 2005, and prepared and delivered each of the instant loan certificates.
Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120 million as stated in each of the instant loan certificates.
B) Each of the instant loans asserted by Defendant B was made by the Plaintiff’s coercion. Defendant B merely borrowed KRW 4.8 million from the Plaintiff on November 28, 2007 to December 21, 201, and offset against the Plaintiff’s loan claims against Defendant B with Defendant B. Even if the set-off is not recognized, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B was extinguished as it repaid KRW 2,1760,000 in excess of the limited interest rate prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act. (2) The facts acknowledged in paragraph (1) of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim and the allegation of Defendant B’s coercion are comprehensively considered as follows, namely,, the fact that Defendant B received the loan from each of the instant loan certificates, and Defendant B borrowed money from the Plaintiff.