대여금
1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's main claim is dismissed;
2. An objection to the trial;
1. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement in the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the principal lawsuit, the defendant can recognize the fact that he borrowed KRW 10 million from the plaintiff on November 30, 2006 as the due date for repayment on May 30, 2007. On January 11, 2007, the fact that the above loan was repaid with KRW 4 million is the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the remainder of the loan and the damages for delay to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense and the ground for counterclaim as to the principal lawsuit
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) Of the above loans, KRW 2 million was already offset by the Defendant’s loan amounting to KRW 2 million against the Plaintiff on January 7, 2005. 2) The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to exempt the Plaintiff from the remaining loans amounting to KRW 4 million.
3) In relation to a land sales contract entered into with the Plaintiff, the Defendant holds the claim to return the down payment and intermediate payment of KRW 13.5 million from the Plaintiff due to the invalidation or cancellation of the said contract. The Defendant offsets the said claim against the Plaintiff’s loans, and seeks the payment of the remainder of the loans after offsetting the instant counterclaim. B. The Defendant’s assertion on the offset of loans as of January 7, 2005 is admissible as evidence, consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that he lent KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff on January 7, 2005, and as of January 7, 2005, the said document cannot be used as evidence due to the lack of evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the said fact, and there is no agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on November 30, 2006, which offsets KRW 2 million from the loans as of November 30, 2006. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
C. There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the assertion of exemption agreement to exempt the Defendant from the obligation of KRW 4 million, as alleged by the Defendant, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion.