대여금
1. The defendant shall pay 73,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from July 19, 2016 to the day of full payment.
1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings or videos of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, 2, 3, 4-1, 2, 3, 5-1, and 6-1 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 6-1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff extended a total of KRW 73 million to the Defendant 19 times in total, as shown in the loan statement, from October 26, 201 to December 9, 2015.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 73 million and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from July 19, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the instant payment order.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts as follows.
Of the money at issue in this case, the Defendant actually borrowed KRW 2,00,000, and the remainder is only the Defendant’s interest in borrowing the loan from the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff. On May 26, 2016, C took over the Defendant’s obligation to borrow from the Plaintiff and prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff as a result of the Defendant’s settlement of accounts with the Plaintiff at the time of the Defendant’s exemption from the Defendant’s obligation to borrow from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim. As such, the Defendant’s obligation under the said notarial deed is entirely separate from the borrowed money, there is a need for objective evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion.
Even upon examining the evidence No. 1 of the above No. 1, C does not contain any provision that C will be exempted from the Defendant’s obligation to borrow funds against the Plaintiff, and there is no reference as to the Defendant’s obligation to borrow funds against the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that C has exempted the Defendant from the Defendant’s obligation to borrow funds. The witness’s testimony does not constitute objective evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is acceptable.