대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from April 24, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause for the claim Gap 1 and 2, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 80 million to the Defendant on April 10, 2013 without setting the due date and interest, and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repay the above loan, and on October 29, 2013, the Defendant paid only KRW 10 million out of the above loan to the Plaintiff on October 29, 2013, and thereafter, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the remainder of the loan to the Defendant, but did not pay the remainder up to the present.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 70 million which has not been repaid among the above loans ( KRW 80 million - KRW 10 million) and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 24, 2014 to the date of full payment, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the copy of the complaint of this case is served on the Defendant.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.
A. While the Defendant acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff and repaid KRW 15 million among them, the Defendant asserted that he paid KRW 39,154,821 in addition to the above repayment, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, the above assertion is rejected. (i.e., the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff borrowed money from Nonparty B and lent it to the Defendant, and the Defendant has the effect of the repayment equivalent to the above amount because it has remitted KRW 35 million to B,” but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument by the Defendant (i.e., it is unclear whether the Defendant actually remitted KRW 15 million to B.).
In addition, the defendant asserts that "the defendant paid KRW 4,154,821 to the non-party C, who is an employee of the plaintiff, to the effect that he/she has the effect of paying the same amount since he/she paid the plaintiff's business trip cost to the non-party C, but the defendant's above assertion (the non-party C is an employee of the plaintiff and whether the defendant actually paid the above expenses, etc