대여금 등
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
2. The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff extended money several times to the Defendant’s wife C, and borrowed KRW 210 million from C on March 5, 2010 until December 30, 2010.
“A certificate of borrowing was issued.”
B. From May 18, 2010 to October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the sum of KRW 110 million to the Defendant’s or C’s account, and on December 22, 2010, issued a certificate of borrowing under the Defendant’s name (a evidence No. 1; the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant was forged) stating the loan amount of KRW 110 million from the Defendant as the loan amount of KRW 10,000,00,000 from the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff was issued a certificate of borrowing under the Defendant’s name (i.e., the authenticity can be recognized in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements No.
C. The Plaintiff wired the Defendant’s account, KRW 10 million on January 28, 201, KRW 10 million, KRW 10 million on February 14, 201, and KRW 30 million on August 14, 2012.
The Plaintiff received interest calculated at the rate of 24% per annum on the total amount of loans to C and the Defendant from the account in the name of C from April 2010 to March 2013.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff's assertion is a usual family owner C, and the defendant, his spouse, borrowed money through C because it is necessary to conduct real estate development business, and most of the money was remitted to the defendant's account under the name of the defendant, and the money remitted to the plaintiff from the account under the name of C was also created by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's lending of money is the defendant or the obligation to return the loan is an indivisible obligation with the defendant.
From March 1, 2010 to August 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 370 million to the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff was paid the principal KRW 310 million from March 201 to April 2012, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the leased principal and the damages for delay calculated at 24% per annum from April 1, 2013, the following day after the Plaintiff was paid interest.
(ii).