대여금
1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from December 23, 2016 to April 12, 2018.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 7, 2013, the Plaintiff issued two copies among three copies of a cashier’s check, which was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s deposit account of the community credit cooperatives, to the Defendant.
B. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a copy of a cashier’s check in the face value of KRW 30 million, which was withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the Bank of Korea.
C. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 21,233,050 to the Plaintiff’s one bank account in the Plaintiff’s bank account in Korea-Sa Bank as designated by the Defendant on October 10, 2013, and KRW 8,932,778 to November 4, 2013.
At the time of July 16, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 80,000 from the Plaintiff, half of which were received from the Plaintiff, up to August 20, 2015, and up to half of which would be paid in the future from Vietnam,” as “the cash custody certificate of this case,” stating that the Defendant’s business stay in Vietnam as of July 16, 2015, and demanded the Plaintiff to perform the obligation related to each of the above money.”
E) The Defendant prepared and arranged the instant business and returned to the Republic of Korea on November 2015 while running the clothing business in Vietnam. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (each entry, including the serial number, and the purport of the entire pleadings).
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 80 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1, the Defendant first prepared the Defendant’s investment of each of the instant money in the Vietnam clothes business of the Defendant, when the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in in incompetial relations, which is not a loan, but an investment, and the cash custody certificate of this case is merely a mere form of a document prepared upon the Plaintiff’s request that “a large amount of money was raised from South and North Korea to be asked to the husband because it was an empty and unfolded one.”