beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,766,792 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from July 23, 2015 to September 30, 2015 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on December 9, 2010, the Defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff by setting the Defendant’s KRW 30 million as of December 9, 201 and as of December 30 per annum (payment on the nineth day of each month) and then remitted KRW 28.5 million to the Plaintiff after deducting KRW 1.5 million from the monthly interest on December 1, 2010.
[Grounds for recognition: (a) The Defendant entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff on January 13, 201, which provides that KRW 20 million shall be paid up to January 12, 201; (b) interest rate of KRW 30 per annum; and (c) interest rate of delay damages shall be 30% per annum; and (d) the Defendant transferred KRW 19 million to the Plaintiff after deducting KRW 1 million as the monthly interest rate of KRW 100,000 from January 13, 2013.
[Grounds for recognition: The Defendant lent KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on February 23, 2011 without setting interest and due date, but received reimbursement of KRW 5 million on March 9, 201.
[Reasons for Recognition: The Defendant, on May 20, 201, set the amount of KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff and the amount of KRW 30% per annum without setting the due date.
[Ground of Recognition: Unstrifed facts, entry in Eul 4, hereinafter referred to as "No.4 loan") the Plaintiff repaid the total of KRW 12.9 billion, as stated in the [Attachment Statement] from January 9, 201 to May 15, 2015.
[Grounds for Recognition: Each of the parties' claims for each of the above loans that the defendant lent to the plaintiff was fully repaid with the above KRW 12930,000,000,000, and the defendant paid in excess of KRW 19,766,792, the defendant asserts that the above excessive amount of KRW 19,766,792 is obligated to return the above excessive amount to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
The defendant borrowed a total of KRW 60 million from the defendant, and purchased Article 25 of the charcoal 25, thereby running the above charcoal lease business. The defendant and the defendant were the above 6.