대여금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 44,80,000 and KRW 40,000 among them, from July 1, 2016 to the day of full payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and 7 as to the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff and Dong were de facto marital relations, but the plaintiff or G lent money to the defendant on January 1, 2016, the plaintiff, G, and the defendant prepared a certificate of borrowed money with the purport that the plaintiff, debtor, witness G, borrowed money amounting to 40,000,000 won, due date for payment on July 30, 2016, and 2% interest month. Accordingly, it is determined that the plaintiff, G, and the defendant agreed to lend money to the defendant on January 1, 2016 as 2% for the purpose of arranging the existing monetary relations.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay compensation amounting to KRW 4,800,000 (i.e., KRW 800,000 x 6 months), total of KRW 44,800,000, and the interest or delay compensation amounting to KRW 40,000 from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 (i.e., KRW 80,000 x 6 months), and the interest or delay compensation amounting to KRW 40,00,000 on the principal amount of KRW 40,000 from July 1, 2016 to the date of full payment.
2. The independent party intervenors, who are the successors of the network G’s decision on the claims of the independent party intervenors, are asserting that the network G has claims against the Defendant for KRW 40,00,000 and interest thereon, but the evidence submitted by the independent party intervenors alone is insufficient to acknowledge this, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted, and the independent party intervenor's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.