대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from March 19, 2014 to August 10, 2015.
1. Comprehensively taking into account the written evidence No. 1 and the overall purport of the argument as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 80,000,000,000 and damages for delay thereof, at the request of Nonparty C, the representative director of the Plaintiff, on November 18, 2013, to the effect that “the Defendant pays the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 80,000,000 to the Plaintiff by March 18, 2014.” Accordingly, according to the above facts acknowledged, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 80,00,000 and damages for delay.
I would like to say.
2. The defendant's defense is proved that Gap's evidence No. 1 (money tea certificate) was prepared by the plaintiff's representative director C with money to the defendant's husband when the plaintiff's representative director C prepares a false loan certificate, and there is no false document from the document prepared by false conspiracy with others.
In light of the facts alleged by the Defendant, there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion, and rather, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments in Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 through 6, between September 16, 2013 and February 2, 2014, C remitted to the Defendant a total of KRW 75,300,000 in loans or loans for several times during several times, and the Defendant wired a total of KRW 21,050,000 in several times from October 2013 to February 2014, it is recognized that the Defendant remitted a total of KRW 21,050,000 among several times. This circumstance is deemed that “The Defendant would have been able to obtain high profits if it invests in his amusement business, and paid the Plaintiff money to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not have promised to pay the Plaintiff’s money, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that C was trusted and delivered with the Plaintiff’s statement of credibility by up to March 18, 2014.
Therefore, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.
3. Conclusion