대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 160,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 10% per annum from July 1, 2011 to the day of complete payment.
1. Examining the reasoning of evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, and 13 as to the cause of the claim in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff loaned 160 million won per annum to the Defendant, who is his/her husband, on June 20, 201, at the rate of 10 million won, without setting the due date for repayment. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest calculated at the rate of 10% per annum from July 1, 2011 to the date of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant: (a) stated to the effect that the Defendant would deliver and deliver the loan certificate (No. 1) to the Plaintiff on April 18, 2017; (b) the Defendant would have paid the loan money with telephone calls around April 18, 2017; (c) the Plaintiff would have her husband and son D fright to drink and fright each day due to an indemnity and decentralization; and (d) the Defendant would make the Defendant frightly pay the loan money to the Plaintiff; and (c) upon the withdrawal of the loan, the Defendant would request the Defendant to pay the loan amount exceeding KRW 160,000,000,000; and (d) the Defendant would have responded to the Plaintiff’s request to do so in order to make the Plaintiff know, which constitutes a declaration of intention under Article 107 of the Civil Act, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the invalidity of this defense, but there is no defense to the effect that this defense is invalid.
B. In addition, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 40 million to the Defendant on June 10, 201 is the money that the Plaintiff donated after consultation with C for the economic independence of the Defendant who lost marriage. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.
C. Lastly, the Defendant is not entitled to claim a loan against the Defendant, since all the money that the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant is owned by C.