beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. From September 9, 2016 to March 2, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed a total of KRW 360 million from the Defendants as business funds; (b) on September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50 million from the Defendants as business funds; (c) on the same day, the Plaintiff obtained KRW 48 million after subtracting KRW 2 million from the name of Defendant B, as a prior interest, among KRW 50 million; and (d) KRW 40 million calculated by subtracting KRW 10 million from the name of Defendant C as a prior interest; and (e) December 9, 2016, after deducting KRW 20 million from the name of Defendant C as a prior interest, KRW 175 million; and (e) KRW 175 million from the name of Defendant C, KRW 60 million from March 26, 2017; and (e) KRW 1.50 million from the amount calculated by deducting KRW 1.3 million from the paid interest.
From May 10, 2017 to May 11, 2018, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendants a total of KRW 80.5 million as interest, and paid a total of KRW 360 million from December 9, 2016 to May 11, 2018.
Despite the interest rate of 24% per annum, which is the maximum amount stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act, for 30 million won actually borrowed from the Defendants, 50,843,439 won per annum, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendants a total of KRW 12,310 million, including KRW 80,50,000,000 as interest, and KRW 42,60,000,000,000 as interest. The Defendants unjust enrichment from the Plaintiff, and thus, are obligated to return the said interest amount to the Plaintiff.
B. First, as to whether the Defendants are a lender of the above monetary loan contract against the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
(In light of the evidence No. 1-1 to No. 3, the lender of the above monetary loan contract seems to be E, not the Defendants. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants are the lender of the above monetary loan contract is without merit.