대여금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount:
1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts KRW 400,000 to the Defendant on May 22, 2012;
5.30.24 million won;
7.20,000 won;
8.25.3.4 million won;
8.28.3 million won;
8.31.1.11 million won and a total of KRW 10.5 million have no dispute between the parties.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff's assertion was received from C, which had been known about ten years ago, five years ago, and C is not a certified judicial scrivener but a certified judicial scrivener. The plaintiff is living together with the defendant.
From May 22, 2012, on the ground that the Defendant would repay all by the end of December 2012.
8. Until 31.3, up to six times, 10.5 million won has been lent.
B. The Defendant did not borrow or engage in money transaction from the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the said money is only a monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s remaining South Korea.
C. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff applied for provisional attachment of KRW 10,50,000 as to the real estate owned by the Defendant under the Incheon District Court Decision 2013Kadan4730 on April 30, 2013, and the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the said KRW 10,50,050 by mail verifying the content of June 3, 2013. Since there is no evidence to deem that the money remitted by the Plaintiff is merely a monetary transaction with C, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,50,00 to the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 10,50,000 and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment, which is the date on which the Defendant rendered a ruling of the first instance that it is reasonable to dispute over the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation to pay to the Defendant from January 10, 2014, which is the date on which the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.
On June 3, 2013, the Plaintiff urged repayment by the Defendant’s failure to pay the money by the end of December, 2012.