대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant several times, but there was a case in which the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant, such as assault, etc., due to the following problems: (a) the instant case was brought to criminal conciliation; (b) on January 15, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant appeared on the date of criminal conciliation and concluded criminal conciliation with the following contents.
(1) The plaintiff and the defendant are in apologys with each other, and bear each other's medical expenses.
② The Plaintiff withdraws the accusation against the Defendant on the date of conciliation.
③ As to KRW 8.2 million that the Plaintiff did not receive from the Defendant, the Defendant shall deposit KRW 600,000 each month from March 2015 to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff.
3) However, the defendant did not pay the plaintiff the above 8.2 million won to the plaintiff. [The statement in Gap evidence No. 1 based on recognition, the purport of the whole pleadings.]
B. According to the facts found earlier, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 8, 2018 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, to the day of complete payment.
2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not have to pay the Plaintiff a full repayment of the loan. However, as the Plaintiff received a payment from the Defendant by organizing a false system in order to receive money, the Plaintiff came into fighting between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, which caused the Defendant to assault the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant and submitted it to criminal conciliation. However, if the Plaintiff did not promise to pay KRW 8.2 million to the Defendant at the time of the criminal conciliation, he/she threatened the Defendant that he/she would not have to reach a criminal agreement, and the Defendant would have to be bound without the criminal agreement.