대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,850,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 7, 2015 to December 8, 2015.
1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted the Defendant’s account totaling KRW 38,450,00 to the Defendant’s account as shown below does not conflict between the parties, or that there is no evidence set forth in the evidence Nos. 1 and 3.
The remittance amount from the date of transfer No. 11,450,00 won on September 11, 2008 208 3. 5,000,000 won on September 12, 2008 3. 5,000,000 won on September 19, 2008 4. 1,00,000,000 won on October 20, 208 5,000,00 won on October 31, 2008 6. 5,00,000,000 won on January 22, 2009 7, 200,000 won on December 15, 2013, 200, 3,000,000 won on August 3, 200, 300,508
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff alleged that the above remittance amount is a loan, and the defendant claimed the return of the above remittance amount against the defendant, the defendant alleged that the above remittance amount was a donation of business funds and living expenses to the defendant on the premise that the plaintiff returned to the defendant on the premise that he was remarried with the defendant.
B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the plaintiff becomes aware of the defendant while engaging in construction machinery rental business under the trade name of "C", and 3.B.
2) As seen in the above, it is recognized that there was a monetary transaction such as lending business funds, etc. to the Defendant, and in light of the above recognized facts, it is reasonable to deem that the amount of the transferred funds in the above 1-mentioned case is also a loan, and each entry or image in the evidence Nos. 2 through 5 does not interfere with the above recognition, and no other counter-proof exists. Therefore, the Defendant is 38,450,000 won in total of the above loan (hereinafter “instant loan”).
There is an obligation to pay damages for delay.
3. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, as indicated in the following table, not only remitted the sum of KRW 21,103,500 to the Plaintiff’s account, but also transferred KRW 2,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s account on January 4, 2010, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the amount equivalent to each of the above transfers out of the instant loans became extinct due to repayment.
1. The remittance amount from the date of transfer;