beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 24,850,000 and KRW 3,000,000 among them, from November 1, 2012, and KRW 21,850.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 2, 201, the Plaintiff set the interest rate of KRW 4% per month, interest rate of KRW 30 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 39% per annum, and due date of repayment on October 31, 2012 to Defendant B, with interest rate of KRW 4 million per annum (34% per annum), interest rate of KRW 30 million per annum, interest rate of KRW 39% per annum, and interest rate of KRW 31, 201, respectively.
B. Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed each of the above loans owed by Defendant B to the Plaintiff.
C. The Plaintiff received 2,150,000 won interest, out of the principal and interest of the loan on October 31, 2012 from Defendant B.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 24.85 million and KRW 3 million, whichever is the following day after the due date for repayment, to the Plaintiff, delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from June 1, 2013 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
B. As to the Defendants’ defense, from around 1992, Defendant B made a transaction with the Plaintiff and paid approximately KRW 7.5 million to the Plaintiff each year as interest exceeding the maximum interest rate stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act and the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users. Since the above maximum interest rate exceeds the above maximum interest rate, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above interest set off each of the above loans.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above interest against the Plaintiff by Defendant B, and the said defense by the Defendants is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting all of the claims.