대여금
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 26,193,516 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from May 29, 2013 to January 8, 2014.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B are inter-Korean relations with the outer ginseng villages, and the Defendants are married with their husband and wife.
B. From June 2006, the Plaintiff used 10 million won for the purpose of housing lease deposit; from October 26, 2006 to April 4, 2007, 50 million won for the purpose of purchasing the self-denunciation period (it shall be KRW 5 million on October 26, 2006; KRW 5 million on November 7, 2006; KRW 20 million on April 3, 2007; KRW 7 million on April 4, 2007; KRW 7 million on April 4, 2005; KRW 7 million on April 6, 2007; KRW 7 million on October 16, 2006 to April 8, 2008; KRW 7 million on June 16, 2005; and KRW 7 million on June 201, 207; and KRW 7 million on June 26, 2008; and
C. The Plaintiff jointly operated the name tag manufacturing business from around January 30, 2007 to June 201, with the trade name “D” and “F from Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, and, from January 30, 2007 to May 201, the Plaintiff provided a subcontract for the manufacture of name tag to the Defendants, and the Defendants manufactured and supplied name tag to the Plaintiff.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap's 1 to 5 evidence, Eul's 1 to 4 evidence (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for the payment of the instant loan, and the Defendants asserted that all of the instant loan was extinguished as a result of offsetting and settling accounts with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for a name tag against the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remainder of the payment for the name tag transaction to the Plaintiff as a counterclaim. Thus, the lower court also deemed as to the principal claim and counterclaim.
A. As stated in the facts of the above recognition of the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendants, the fact that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 103,755,724 over several occasions from June 2006 to January 8, 2008 to the Defendants does not conflict between the parties, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are in the nature of the instant loan obligation owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.