대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from July 5, 2014 to January 15, 2015.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as to the cause for the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff may be found to have lent KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant on December 7, 2013. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30,000,000 as to the above loan and the damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from July 5, 2014 to January 15, 2015, the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of the decision, and from the next day to the day of full payment.
(4) The Plaintiff’s claim on December 8, 2013 to July 4, 2014 is based on the annual interest rate of 5% on the above loan, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the payment of interest on the above loan. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on this part is without merit).
A. The summary of the defendant's assertion 1) The defendant merely borrowed money from C Co., Ltd. with the representative director and did not borrow money from the plaintiff. Thus, the claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is the creditor of the above loan is without merit. 2) Further, the amount borrowed from C Co., Ltd. is not KRW 30 million but KRW 20,000,000.
B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 2 and 3, namely, ① according to the recording of the recording of conversations (Evidence No. 3) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant during the proceeding of this case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on July 7, 2014, the Defendant responded only to the purport that, when the Plaintiff stated that “the Plaintiff “the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000,000,000,0000,” the Defendant did not dispute about the amount of loan or loan, and that the said loan was appropriated for another place (or agreement obligation), and the Plaintiff’s loan is Seoul as Seoul.