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. If the purport of the entire argument is added to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 14, 2003 to the date of complete payment, as the defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the plaintiff on January 10, 2003, and the remaining KRW 10 million until February 20, 2003. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 14, 2003 to the date of complete payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion that KRW 20 million was the Defendant’s holding office as the auditor of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) in around 2002, and borrowed the Defendant’s operating funds. The settlement of the above KRW 20 million out of the amount of KRW 40 million for the construction of a new dormitory for D Hospital to be paid by the Nonindicted Company was completed in the manner that F, the actual manager of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), who was the Plaintiff as the representative director, was directly paid from D Hospital.
B. The witness G of the trial court testified that "the defendant company, who had worked as the auditor, borrowed KRW 20 million from E that the plaintiff worked as the representative director, and F, the actual manager of E, received the construction cost of KRW 40 million directly from D Hospital to pay the non-party company the construction cost of KRW 20 million from D Hospital, and returned the remaining 20 million to the non-party company, after appropriating the non-party company's repayment of the loan amount of KRW 20 million to the non-party company," but the above testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the above loan of the defendant against the non-party company was settled, and otherwise, the loan of the non-party company E pursuant to the above testimony is identical to the above loan of the plaintiff against the defendant, and F, from the plaintiff.