대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,550,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 4, 2016 to May 3, 2016, and the following.
1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the witness Eul's testimony and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff found his claim against Eul and urged the plaintiff to pay his claim to D with D's credit, and the defendant was employed as D's employee. However, since the plaintiff's demand for repayment was repeated and it was likely to hinder business, the plaintiff's business was not obliged to pay to the plaintiff, and even if he did not operate his business, he would incur economic loss, thereby he would pay the plaintiff's obligation to the plaintiff every day from April 5, 2012. "The defendant shall pay 150,000 won each day from April 8, 2012 to the plaintiff." Total amount of KRW 30,000,000,000,000, which stated that the above amount of obligation should be charged to the plaintiff, and the defendant, on April 20, 200, can be recognized as having been discharged to the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff asserts that he is responsible for the defendant's full repayment of KRW 30,00,000. However, as seen in the above facts of recognition, the defendant prepared a letter of payment to the effect that he does not bear the obligation to the plaintiff but does not perform his business, thereby incurring economic damage from the profit accrued from his daily business every day. Thus, since the defendant bears the obligation to pay the plaintiff the above letter of payment only up to two times, the defendant is liable for the above amount of 1,50,000 won (150,000 won X 13,40,000 won).
As to this, the defendant first asserts that the above statement of payment was made out by the plaintiff's deception and coercion, but it is not sufficient to recognize such circumstance only by the witness C's testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
As seen earlier, the defendant is not the plaintiff's coercion or deception, but its economic situation.