대여금
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 78,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 21, 2015 to the day of full payment.
1. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings on the Plaintiff’s claim Nos. 2 and 1 evidence, the Defendant’s promise to pay KRW 78 million to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2010 can be acknowledged.
Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above amount and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 21, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when a duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant, as requested by the Plaintiff.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. Although the statement of the purport of the assertion (Evidence 2) was prepared to pay KRW 78 million to the Plaintiff and C, the Plaintiff submitted as evidence a letter of payment (Evidence 1) that had been altered by arbitrarily deleting the name of C in the above statement of payment (Evidence 1).
The above payment angle is written by strong pressure under the restraint of the plaintiff's birth and C.
As to the obligations stipulated in the above payment note, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the obligations are the unpaid bills and loans of five chapters at a discount to the Defendant from June 23, 2008 to July 22, 2008. However, since there exists no original three of the bills asserted by the Plaintiff, and the remainder of the bills are already repaid and recovered by the Defendant around 2008, there remains no money to be paid to the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) We examine the defense of alteration of evidence No. 1. The plaintiff also is the person who is the fact of alteration, so the evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence. Accordingly, the defendant's defense of proof pointing this out is justified. 2) The defendant's assertion of the above paragraph 1 as well as the defendant's assertion that it is the joint claim of the plaintiff and C is included.
However, according to the above evidence, C appears to have been recorded as a creditor for the convenience of collection business as an employee of a credit service company, which was operated by the Plaintiff, for the convenience of collection business. Thus, the claim under the above payment rejection letter is set forth by the Plaintiff.