대여금
1. Defendant B’s KRW 236,50,000 as well as 6% per annum from August 29, 2015 to February 9, 2017, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
On August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 647 million in total to Defendant B by the same method until March 9, 2015, including lending KRW 300,000 to Defendant B by issuing a household check ( check number: D) with a face value of KRW 3 million in the name of the Plaintiff on August 31, 2009 and delivering it to Defendant B, and there is no dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 41,50,000,000 in total from the Defendant as stated in the loan list in the loan list in attached Table 2 by the same method.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the loans KRW 245 million (the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be the amount of outstanding loan, i.e., the total amount indicated as “E companyF” in the loan table attached to the instant complaint, i.e., the amount of outstanding loan, and the amount of outstanding loan. However, Defendant B shall be deemed to be the amount of outstanding loan, barring any special circumstance.) and damages for delay.
As to Defendant B’s assertion of comprehensive repayment, Defendant B asserted that Defendant B repaid all loans other than the loan amounting to KRW 3 million on March 9, 2015, which was the last transaction, in addition to the Plaintiff’s repayment, but Defendant B could not claim specific repayment except for the detailed additional repayment as otherwise alleged in the following sub-paragraph (2). In light of the fact that Defendant B did not claim specific repayment, it is insufficient to recognize the aforementioned assertion by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, Defendant B’s defense is without merit.
2) In addition to the portion of the Plaintiff’s entity, Defendant B and Defendant B’s husband’s wife, in addition to the portion of the Plaintiff’s entity’s assertion of additional reimbursement.