대여금
1. The defendant shall pay 80,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from September 21, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
On December 28, 2010, the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff to the effect that “80,000 won is repaid to the Plaintiff, but no money is paid, and the Plaintiff shall be given the deposit money and all rights-related events under the ground of Guri-si C, Guri-si, as of December 28, 2010, and the Defendant shall be held liable for all civil and criminal responsibilities if he/she comes to do so,” and the Defendant did not transfer the above dan’s business to the Plaintiff by December 28, 2010, and the fact that the said dan transferred the said dan to a third party is not disputed between the parties, or that the said dan was transferred to the Plaintiff by December 28, 2010 can be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings in the statement of
In addition to the purport of the entire argument in the above facts, if the defendant acknowledged the existence of the obligation to pay KRW 80 million to the plaintiff, and if the defendant did not pay the above money by December 28, 2010, the above agreement is deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiff instead of all business rights, such as the deposit, etc. of the above danran, and if it does not transfer the right to the plaintiff with the right to the business of the danran bar, it can be deemed to have been agreed that the plaintiff shall be liable for the amount of KRW 80 million and shall be paid to the plaintiff. Ultimately, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above agreed amount of KRW 80 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 21, 2014 to the day of full payment.
In regard to this, the defendant argues that since all the money transferred by the plaintiff to the account under the name of the defendant was a monetary transaction between the plaintiff and E and after E, the plaintiff was living together with two domestic violences, and the defendant was forced to prepare a letter (Evidence A (Evidence A (No. 1), and that the above agreement under the above letter has no validity.
However, in light of the statement of No. 4, it is not enough to recognize the defendant's above assertion only by the statement of No. 1.