beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.29 2014가단55152

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from March 23, 2014 to August 29, 2014; and (b) August 30, 2014.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff made a loan to the defendant, but the defendant did not pay it to the defendant, so the defendant is obligated to pay the following loans and delay damages to the plaintiff:

On March 25, 2008, the Plaintiff lent a total of 55,000,000 won to the Defendant, such as deposit of KRW 5,00,000 on July 15, 2008, KRW 200,000,000 on the pretext of raising funds for the lease deposit. < Amended by Act No. 8883, Jul. 15, 2008; Act No. 8857, Aug. 7, 2008>

B. On May 29, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the said money by cash and check in order to cover the Defendant’s credit card use amount.

C. The defendant of KRW 8,400,000 for a periodical installment payment of KRW 8,400,000 is to pay the subscription installment payment in the name of the plaintiff later, and the plaintiff has lent KRW 10,000 per month to the defendant for eight years from August 27, 2003, and the total amount reaches the above amount.

On June 16, 2010, the plaintiff 10,000 won lent KRW 10,000 as the down payment at the time when the defendant purchased the apartment house No. 1111 dong 2004 at Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si on June 16, 2010.

E. The Plaintiff borrowed money from 2,548,997 for the loan to the Defendant by obtaining the loan from the Mapo-gu passbook. The Defendant paid only KRW 2,870,00 among KRW 5,418,997 for the loan from April 21, 2008 to February 25, 2014, and paid only KRW 2,548,997 for the loan.

2. First of all, the Plaintiff lent KRW 9,900,00 as the Defendant’s credit card payment.

A. As to the assertion that the interest amount on the loan of Mappbook was unpaid each month as a regular deposit, there is a lack to recognize it only with the descriptions of No. 2, No. 3, and No. 5.

In particular, even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on a periodical installment payment, the above installment savings shall be deemed a loan to the defendant, in light of the fact that the ownership belongs to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.