대여금등
1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 500,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 14, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant several times from December 1, 2009 to July 25, 2011; the Defendant, around October 10, 201, decided to settle the Defendant’s existing loan obligations with respect to the Plaintiff and to settle the Defendant’s existing loan obligations with respect to the Plaintiff, and at the face value of KRW 1.68 billion with respect to a promissory note with respect to KRW 1.68 billion with respect to the Plaintiff, shall be subject to a promissory note as of October 10, 201.
B. A notary public issued and issued a notarial deed No. 636 of the 201 notarial deed to the Plaintiff in the Korean Joint Law Office No. 201, which was prepared and issued by a notary public, around November 28, 2011, when conducting financial transactions with the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued and delivered a notarial deed No. 738 of the 201 notarial deed to the Korean Joint Law Office No. 738, and around April 10, 2012, a notary public prepared and delivered a notarial deed No. 80 of the 2012 notarial deed to the Defendant around July 10, 2012, a notarial deed No. 80 of the 2012 notarial deed to the Korean Joint Law Office No. 2012, Sep. 26, 2012; and the Plaintiff prepared and delivered a notarial deed No. 20325,25,2012 notarial deed to the Defendant.
7.25.Woman 2 million won around the same year and the same year.
8. The loan of KRW 6 million around 23.2 does not conflict between the parties, or according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, 14, and 25, it can be acknowledged, and the statement No. 1 alone is insufficient to reverse it, and there is no other counter-proof.
The plaintiff lent 70 million won to the defendant around December 1, 2009, and 15 million won around December 201, 201, respectively. Each of the above loan obligations was not included in the obligation subject to settlement related to promissory notes dated October 10, 201, and thus, the defendant is liable to pay each of the above loan obligations to the plaintiff.
According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 11 through 13, the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and the plaintiff around Dec. 1, 2009.