대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,861,894 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from September 30, 2013 to April 9, 2015.
1. The Plaintiff’s cause of claim is the cause of the instant claim. On November 29, 201, the Plaintiff agreed to lend or substitute KRW 90,600,000 for the purpose of using the lease deposit and KRW 50,600,000 for the purpose of using the lease deposit, and for the purpose of using the expenses for interior works, and the Defendant agreed to repay the said amount. From that time, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 38,15,660 in total as part of the interest and principal by the rate of 6% per annum until September 29, 2013. Since some of them were appropriated for the interest and appropriated for the principal amount of KRW 26,241,590, the Defendant is liable to pay damages for delay in accordance with the ratio of the Commercial Act and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings to the remainder of KRW 64,358,410 for the purpose of using the lease deposit.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On November 29, 201, there is no dispute over the fact that the Plaintiff operating a pharmacy with the KRW 40,000,000 for the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000 for the purpose of using the lease deposit of KRW 30,00,00 for the lease deposit of KRW 40,00,000 leased by the Defendant to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant member”).
B. In full view of the description of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of Gap evidence No. 4-1, the defendant, on November 29, 201, prepared and delivered a loan certificate stating that the plaintiff borrowed the interior expenses (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") with loans for the purpose of using the lease deposit, with the amount of the interior expenses of KRW 40,600,000,000, and the amount of the interior expenses paid by the plaintiff as a result of the loan No. 50,600,000, and the purport of the whole argument No. 4-1, it is recognized that Eul concluded the interior construction work with the plaintiff, who is the interior business operator, and the amount of the construction expenses of the plaintiff's interior expenses of this case, is somewhat unclear, and the construction expenses of this case are completed and clearly stated.