대여금 반환
1. The Defendant’s KRW 114,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff
A. As regards KRW 50,00,000 among them, from December 11, 2010 to February 5, 2015
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 11, 2009, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 250 million to the Defendant a sum of KRW 1.5% of the interest rate per month, KRW 50 million due date on February 11, 2010, and KRW 50 million due date on August 11, 2010, respectively (hereinafter the above loans of KRW 200 million to the Defendant as “instant first loan” and “the loans of KRW 50 million” and “the loans of KRW 200,000,000,000,000 to secure the above loans,” and the Plaintiff’s provisional registration was made in order to secure the above loans of KRW 20,000,000,000,000 for KRW 250,000,000,000 in total.
B. On August 17, 2009, B completed the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “the provisional registration of this case”) with respect to the forest of this case, on which the Plaintiff as the person entitled to provisional registration is the Plaintiff.
C. On December 14, 2010, the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 100 million on December 13, 2010; and (b) on December 14, 2010, the following day, the Defendant drafted a letter of payment stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 8 million as the unpaid interest rate of KRW 250 million up to December 10, 2010, up to December 30, 201; and (c) the remainder of KRW 6 million up to February 28, 201, remitted to the Plaintiff’s account on December 24, 2010.”
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant did not dispute between the parties as to the fact that KRW 100 million, out of the loan No. 1 of this case, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million, which was not repaid, on two occasions, to the Plaintiff, the principal of the loan No. 1 of this case was repaid on December 13, 2010, and there was a dispute as to the order of appropriation for the repayment with respect to KRW 50 million, which was repaid on December 24, 2010, but the Plaintiff on January 7, 2015, on the premise that the Plaintiff paid the principal of the loan No. 2 of this case to the Plaintiff.