대여금
1. The defendant's KRW 30,000,000 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 28, 2020 to November 12, 2020 for the plaintiff.
1. Determination on a claim for return of a loan under the pretext of a deposit money
A. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 60,00,000 to the Defendant and C (the Plaintiff’s partner and his spouse at the time of the Defendant’s spouse) as the full-time loan, and sought a payment of the amount of KRW 1/2,00,000 and interest for delay from the Defendant.
B. On June 28, 2013, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff lent KRW 60,000,00 to the Defendant and C who was a married couple as of June 28, 2013 (the Defendant submitted a written objection and summary dispute mediation regarding the payment order issued by the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s application, but the written objection about the payment order does not contain a statement on the scope of dispute and specific dispute over the Plaintiff’s claim, and the written summary dispute mediation does not contain a statement on the purport of dispute over the claim of the credit card price as stated in the summary dispute mediation document, and there is no content of dispute over the loan claim). The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000, which is 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s claim, as
Even against the defendant and C, the plaintiff filed an application for a payment order claiming the payment of KRW 64,678,800 and delay damages, and the payment order against C was finalized as it is.
After October 8, 2020, the Plaintiff reduced the claim amount to 1/2 through the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim. On the second date for pleading, the Plaintiff made a statement that the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff is not limited to 1/2 in the case of joint and several liability, and the presiding judge’s explanation that the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff is not limited to the scope of 1/
C. Furthermore, the Plaintiff also claims interest or delay damages from June 29, 2013, which is the day following the loan of the said money, but there was no separate period of payment as at the time of loan of the said KRW 60,000,000 upon the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thereafter, the Plaintiff is the Defendant or the Plaintiff until the application for the instant payment order is filed.