대여금
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. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff lent 165,000,000 won to the defendant on Sep. 20, 2004 without specifying the due date for repayment and interest, and on Oct. 18, 2004, the defendant lent 12,000,000 won to the defendant on Oct. 18, 2004 without specifying the due date for repayment and interest. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff 177,00,000 won (i.e., 165,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12,00,000 won from Feb. 6, 2014 to July 25, 2014, each of which is the next day after the day when the copy of the complaint in this case was served to the defendant as the plaintiff's claim.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant claiming the payment of benefits for illegal cause is insufficient to recognize it only with the statement on the plaintiff's claim that the above money was borrowed from the plaintiff for the purpose of using or lending it as gambling funds, and the plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for the above loan cannot be claimed for the return of illegal consideration. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim for illegal cause constitutes illegal consideration, it is insufficient to acknowledge it only with the statement on the plaintiff's statement, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and witness D of the trial
B. As the Defendant, who had been operating a bond business at the time, borrowed each of the above money from the Plaintiff under the name of business funds, etc., the Defendant asserted that the above claim of the Plaintiff constitutes commercial claims, and that the above claim was extinguished after five years have already elapsed prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, and thus, the Defendant’s testimony alone is the business of bonds at the time.