청구이의
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. Basic facts
A. On September 13, 2012, from the Defendant’s husband C’s husband’s account to the Plaintiff’s account (hereinafter “instant money”), KRW 200 million was remitted from October 10, 201, and KRW 14.4 million was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to C’s account on October 11, 201, and December 12, 2013.
B. On May 14, 2014, the Defendant asserted that the instant money was a loan to the Plaintiff and filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order for the remaining loan of KRW 95.6 million with this court. On May 16, 2014, the said court issued a payment order with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 95.6 million and the amount equivalent to KRW 20% per annum from the day following the service of the authentic copy of the payment order to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was issued for the same year.
6. 6. The decision was finalized as is.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, Gap evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff, not the Defendant, and repaid KRW 14.4 million. The Plaintiff and C set off KRW 95.6 million against the Plaintiff’s remaining loan claims against the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.
Therefore, since the defendant's claim against the plaintiff does not exist, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be rejected.
B. Defendant 1) The Defendant, not C, lent KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Defendant was paid KRW 14.4 million from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant owned a loan claim of KRW 95.6 million from the Plaintiff’s account (Chapter 1) 2 to the Plaintiff’s account on September 13, 2012 (Chapter 2).
The account of C in which the money was transferred is presumed to be jointly owned by the defendant who is the married couple.