beta
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.09.07 2016나6460

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. On February 8, 2013, at the request of the Defendant, the Plaintiff, the birth partner, who made a determination on the cause of the claim, lent KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant on February 8, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), there is no dispute between the parties.

In addition, the defendant's damages to the plaintiff, the 1,500,000 won on April 16, 2013, the same year

5. 15.1,00,000 won, and the same year.

6. 15.1,00,000 won, and the same year.

7. 17.1,00,000 won, and the same year.

8. The repayment of KRW 5,500,000 for a total of KRW 1,00,000 is made by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 9,500,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 22, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. The defendant's defense of the defendant's defense of repayment is proved that the defendant's Dong C, on behalf of the defendant, repaid to the plaintiff KRW 10,00,00,00, and there is no longer no obligation under the loan contract of this case.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff 10,00,000 won from D (company operated by C), January 25, 2013, and the same year

2. 25.10,000,000 won, and the same year.

4. 10,00,000 won on 19.10,000,000 won on 29.10,000 for the same year; and

5. 30.10,000,000 won, and the same year.

6. The fact that he received total of KRW 150,000,000 on 27.10,000 shall be recognized.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had deposited the money to the Plaintiff before February 8, 2013, and the deposit interval is about one month, it is reasonable to view that there exists a separate agreement between the Plaintiff and C (the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was paid the loan to C) and that D paid the money to the Plaintiff.

It is not enough to recognize that C paid a loan to the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant only with the statement of the evidence No. 2, and it is otherwise recognized.