beta
(영문) 광주지방법원장흥지원 2016.05.04 2014가단1875

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 36,200,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from October 9, 2014 to September 30, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts are companies aimed at the development business of stone collection and gathering, and aggregate sales business. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant around February 199 and retired on September 30, 2014 while serving as the former office.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 88.5 million to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request, the former representative director, from February 24, 2012 to July 25, 2014. However, only KRW 52.3 million was repaid.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the loan unpaid to the plaintiff KRW 36.2 million and delay damages.

B. The defendant's assertion did not borrow money from the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff.

The money claimed by the Plaintiff to be lent to the Defendant is merely that the Plaintiff received aggregate payment, etc. from the Defendant’s customer in cash from the Defendant’s former position and deposited it into the Defendant’s account in the name of the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s statement is more reliable than the Defendant’s statement, and the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 88,50,000 to the Defendant as shown in the attached Form.

1) The Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant was extended over a long period of about 2 years and 5 months. In light of the Plaintiff’s status and career in the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s account details, the time when the Plaintiff received the loan of insurance contract, and the amount of the loan, etc., it appears that the Plaintiff had been able to lend money as alleged by the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s copy of the payment of money (Evidence A No. 2) submitted by the Plaintiff was made by the Plaintiff in light of the content and form of the document.

A person shall be appointed.