대여금
1. The defendant shall pay 2,00,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from July 26, 2014 to the day of full payment.
1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 5,407,350,000 in total to December 24, 2013, including the Plaintiff’s remittance of KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant’s deposit account; and the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice with a total of KRW 12,186,486,103 to the Defendant from November 30, 201 to June 30, 2013, including the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 12,48,50,00 in total to the Plaintiff’s account; the Defendant issued a tax invoice with a total of KRW 12,186,486,103 in total to the Defendant from March 24, 2011; the Defendant did not include the Plaintiff’s account the total number of KRW 12,48,50,000 in total or the total number of KRW 31,360,000 in each of the parties’ respective pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment claim are 12,48,500,000 won and damages for delay remaining after offsetting the defendant's claim for the above loans and the claim for the proceeds of the scrap metal from the defendant at KRW 17,593,836,103 from the total amount of the loans and the proceeds of the scrap metal that were remitted or supplied to the defendant, and the claim for the above loans and the proceeds of the scrap metal from the defendant at KRW 2,270,338,136 against the defendant.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that C and D, the representative director of the plaintiff, made a deposit of money transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant by using the plaintiff's funds, not the loan, and that C and D, the representative of the defendant, made a donation for business needs while jointly operating the plaintiff and the defendant.
However, as long as the details of money transactions between accounts in the name of a corporation are clear and tax invoices for goods transactions between corporations are issued on the records, the defendant who contests such circumstances must present sufficient grounds for persuasiveness, and it is difficult to recognize the above facts by only the statement in the document in the document in subparagraph 3, and it is obvious evidence to acknowledge them otherwise.