대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from September 6, 2012 to October 5, 2016, and the following.
1. The fact that there is no dispute over the cause of the claim, and comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), the plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to the defendant on January 31, 201, and the defendant promised to deliver scrap iron, etc. to the plaintiff and pay the above loan. The defendant prepared a letter of promise to pay interest in arrears of KRW 100 million and KRW 30% per annum to the plaintiff on March 2012 by the end of August 2012.
According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 100 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from September 6, 2012 to October 5, 2016, on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served, as requested by the Plaintiff, from September 6, 2012 to October 5, 2016, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc.
2. The defendant's defense was asserted to the purport that the plaintiff deposited a total of KRW 89 million into the account designated by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff used the building located in Pyeongtaek-si C for ten months and paid a total of KRW 30 million ( KRW 3 million per month x 10 months). Thus, the defendant's defense was asserted to the purport that the above loan was fully repaid.
However, the Defendant remitted money to the Plaintiff.
there is no evidence to acknowledge that the building has been used or that it has been used.
(A) The documents attached to the written reply by the Defendant are not submitted as documentary evidence, and the contents thereof cannot be readily determined that the Plaintiff remitted money to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.