대여금
1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from January 31, 2018 to the date of full payment.
1. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including additional numbers) as to the facts of recognition and the cause of claim, the plaintiff borrowed 70 million won from the plaintiff to the defendant, who is the husband’s elementary school, from November 16, 2007, by remitting the amount of 70 million won to the deposit account in the name of the non-party D (the mother of defendant B, who is the mother of the defendant C, will be the mother of the defendant C), without interest and the due date of payment agreement. The defendants can recognize the fact of borrowing money from the plaintiff in order to obtain profits from the subsequent sales of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), which was in a special relationship with the workplace business transaction company of which the defendant C was accompanied, and there is no counter-proof evidence.
In full view of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the relationship between the Defendants, the relationship between the Defendants and the remitter, and the purpose of borrowing money, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants borrowed the said money from the Plaintiff with the intent of joint use. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 31, 2018, the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case, which includes the purport of claiming the return of the said money, was served to the Plaintiff.
2. As to the defendants' assertion
A. First, the Defendants asserted that the said money is not the money lent to the Defendants, but the Plaintiff’s purchase of E’s shares to the Defendants, and that it is a linen investment money.
The Plaintiff was aware of the circumstances that the Defendants intended to purchase shares E in the said money at the time, and the fact that the Defendants purchased approximately KRW 45 million of F’s shares at the request of the Defendants around September 2007, prior to the date of the above remittance.
However, the evidence of paragraph 1 and the purport of the testimony and the whole pleadings of the witness G.