대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from September 20, 2016 to February 8, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
1. On January 15, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,000 to the account of New Co., Ltd. and KRW 20,00,000,000, totaling of KRW 10,000.
The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant’s account, KRW 10,000 on June 25, 2013, KRW 5,000,000 on July 26, 2013, and KRW 15,00,000 on KRW 15,00,00.
On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 50,000,000,000 from January 15, 2013; KRW 10,000,000 from June 25, 2013; and KRW 50,000,000 from July 26, 2013; and the above certificate of content was served to the Defendant around that time.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 14,800,000 to the Defendant on February 5, 2009, and received KRW 5,200,000 from the Defendant on December 30, 2009 and received KRW 5,200,00 on February 11, 2010, and repaid KRW 10,000 from the Defendant on May 24, 2010. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000 from the Defendant on May 27, 2010 and received KRW 12,00,000 from the Defendant on October 25, 200, and transferred KRW 12,00,000 to the Defendant on October 12, 200, and received KRW 00 from the Defendant on October 27, 2010, and was repaid from the Defendant on June 20, 208.
In addition, on February 1, 201, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant, KRW 30,000,000, KRW 300,000 from the Plaintiff’s account, and KRW 70,000,000 from the D’s account, respectively. On June 14, 2011, the Plaintiff also transferred KRW 25,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s account of New Co., Ltd., Ltd. to the Defendant KRW 23,00,000, KRW 22,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 9 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers), Eul evidence No. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the main defense of this case
A. As to the defense against violation of jurisdiction, the defendant raised the lawsuit of this case to the Daegu District Court, which is not the Suwon District Court with the defendant's general forum, and thus, it is unlawful. However, Article 467 (2) of the Civil Code provides that "the delivery of specific objects."