대여금
The Defendant’s KRW 120,000,000 to the Plaintiff as well as its related KRW 5% per annum from January 1, 2015 to January 15, 2021, and January 16, 2021.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is recognized as having prepared and delivered a promissory note No. 348, Dec. 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a notary public attached to a promissory note No. 348, Dec. 31, 2014, which was indicated as the date of payment, to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2014 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). The Plaintiff was a person who received KRW 90,000,000 out of the amount of the instant promissory note No. 120,000 from the Defendant’s payment of the principal amount, as the Plaintiff seeks, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 120,00,000 (= 210,000 - 90,000 and 15,201).
2. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000, not the Plaintiff’s KRW 90,000,000, among the gold of the Promissory Notes of this case, to the Plaintiff.
The argument is asserted.
According to the evidence evidence No. 1 of this case, the defendant paid 100,000 won to the plaintiff over 10 times from March 30, 2015 to January 31, 2017, as shown in the column for repayment of the attached Table No. 31 of the same Table on the day of each year indicated in the attached Table No. 3 of the same Table, but in full view of the purport of the argument as a whole, the plaintiff lent 10,000,000 won to the defendant separately from the Promissory Notes No. 1,2 of this case around May 15, 2012, and 1,00,000 won in total from the debt No. 1,2 of the attached Table No. 1,00,000 won to the loan repayment of the above loan on May 15, 2012 (i.e., the defendant of this case).
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of repayment is with merit within the scope of KRW 90,000,00, and the above KRW 90,000 is without merit.
3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s payment date of the Promissory Notes in this case, which was not paid to the Plaintiff, as well as the payment date of the Promissory Notes in this case.