beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.10.14 2020나2925

대여금

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 5 (including the provisional number) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff deposited KRW 15 million in the defendant's agricultural bank account on March 8, 2016 and deposited KRW 5 million in the same account on March 10, 2016, and the defendant lent KRW 20 million in total to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay damages for delay from December 31, 2019, to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to set the due date for payment and set the interest at 10% per annum in relation to the above loan, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, it is not acceptable to accept the Plaintiff’s claim for payment such as interest exceeding the above recognized portion). 2. The Defendant’s assertion

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that: (a) the Plaintiff received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, not from the loan, a total of KRW 78 million under the sub-lease contract for the land located in Namwon, but from KRW 20 million; (b) the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of KRW 58 million under the said sub-lease contract; and (c) thus, the Defendant agreed to return KRW 10 million out of the total down payment of KRW 20 million, as the Plaintiff breached the said contract by failing to pay the remainder of KRW 58 million.

However, there is no clear evidence to support not only the sublease contract that was concluded with the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant, but also the fact that the Defendant agreed to return KRW 10 million out of KRW 20,000 (the account books of the Defendant and the wife are unilaterally prepared and thus they are not worth being admitted as evidence, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant, such as other recording, is insufficient to recognize the above argument by the Defendant). The Defendant’s above argument cannot be accepted.

B. The defendant, the defendant.