beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff A KRW 600,00,000, and KRW 90,000,000 to the Plaintiff B, and each of them shall be repaid from June 29, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. At the beginning of August 2011, Plaintiff A decided to lend KRW 600 million to the Defendant at a 30% rate per annum after the due date for payment six months, and paid KRW 70 million on August 16, 201, KRW 70 million on August 24, 201, KRW 10 million on August 31, 201, KRW 200 million on September 6, 201 to the Defendant’s account.
B. On April 19, 201, Plaintiff B lent KRW 90,000 to the Defendant with the payment of KRW 100,000 to the Defendant until July 31, 2011, and paid KRW 90,000 as the account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff's 60 million won and damages for delay claimed by the plaintiff A, and the plaintiff's 90 million won and damages for delay claimed by the plaintiff B.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum that Plaintiff A seeks within the scope of the agreement from June 29, 2019 to the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff sought by Plaintiff A, to the day of complete payment, within the scope of the agreement, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 29, 2019 to the day of complete payment. The Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 90 million won per annum and 30% per annum [see Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (Amended by Act No. 10925, Jul. 25, 2011); Article 2(1) of the Interest Limitation Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25376, Jun. 11, 2014) within the maximum of 30% per annum that Plaintiff B seeks.
3. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant's judgment on the defendant's assertion reached an agreement to offset the service payment claim equivalent to KRW 800 million against the plaintiff's debt against the plaintiff's debt against the plaintiff's defendant, the above loan repayment obligation was all extinguished.
The defendant submitted No. 1.