대여금
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant (Appointed Party) B (hereinafter “Defendant B”).
A. Defendant B, around October 2003, borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff as of January 10, 2008 from the Plaintiff on or around January 10, 2008, because there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million and the damages for delay from the day after the copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
B. Defendant B, in relation to Defendant B’s claim for offset against the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s joint investment and purchase of D apartment 107 Dong 201 (hereinafter “sub-party apartment”), defense that the Plaintiff offsets the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff’s loan claim with a total of KRW 56,70,000,000,000,000 of the investment principal and profits that the Plaintiff should pay to Defendant B.
As of November 2008, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Defendant a total of KRW 54,70,000,000,000,000,000 from the investment principal and revenue, but the Plaintiff has a claim for damages against Defendant B in relation to the land Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E site (hereinafter “In Incheon site”). The Plaintiff asserts that the claim, such as investment income, against Defendant B, was appropriated for the offset of the above damage claim.
First, we look at the defendant B's defense of offsetting.
Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, since Defendant B had an opposing claim against the Plaintiff regarding the amount of the Plaintiff’s loan, and the period of repayment of the claim arrives on November 2008, and both the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s respective claims were set off on the same day after they reached the due date. The fact that the preparatory document dated April 13, 2015 stating the declaration of set-off from the equal amount of each of the above claims was delivered to the Plaintiff on the same day, it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff’s loan claim was delivered to the Plaintiff on the same day. Thus, the Plaintiff’s loan claim is retroactive to the above set-off