대여금
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 as well as KRW 25,00,000 among them, from January 22, 2015 to the date of full payment.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 3 million on October 27, 2005, KRW 24.2 million on December 30, 2005, KRW 1 million on December 15, 2006, KRW 100,000 on February 9, 2007, KRW 700,000 on July 10, 2007, KRW 60,000 on October 19, 2007, KRW 10 million on June 30, 2008, and KRW 24.2 million.
A2-1 to 7
B. On November 3, 2011, the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff, and prepared a certificate of loan stating that it will repay it until September 30, 2012, and on the same day, borrowed KRW 7 million from the Plaintiff and repaid it until October 30, 2012, and drafted a certificate of loan stating that the interest will be treated later.
A1-2, 3
C. On February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.
Around March 15, 2013, an amount of KRW 40 million, including the borrowed amount described in the subsection, was paid to KRW 8 million, but among which, the amount of KRW 12 million was paid until March 15, 2013, the amount of KRW 20 million until March 2013, and the amount of KRW 20 million until the end of April 2013 (hereinafter “the instant borrowed certificate”).
A1-1
D. After preparing the instant loan certificate, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff is the person who is the plaintiff.
2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30 million won the agreed amount on the loan certificate of this case (i.e., KRW 40 million-10 million) and 25 million out of the agreed amount as requested by the plaintiff (i.e., the money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 22, 2015 to the date of full payment).
The defendant asserts that the loan certificate of this case was made by the plaintiff's coercion and is void. However, there is no evidence to prove the defendant's above assertion. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.