대여금
1. As to KRW 10,00,000 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 5,000,000 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on November 26, 2013.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is the head of the C branch office of the UP marketing corporation (hereinafter “SP”)
B. From December 2012 to March 2013, the Defendant, while serving in the basin C branch from around December 2012 to around March 2013, entered and processed insurance contracts recruited by the Plaintiff into an insurance contract and served in the form of receiving allowances therefor from the Plaintiff.
C. On October 4, 2013, in order to offer an insurance contract with the Plaintiff as an employee of the basin C branch, the Defendant: (a) settled the amount to be repaid to the Plaintiff at KRW 10 million by settling accounts of the amount subsidized by the Plaintiff; (b) prepared a loan certificate stating that “the Plaintiff shall borrow KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff, and repay KRW 5 million until November 25, 2013, and KRW 5 million until December 25, 2013,” and issued to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1 through 9, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination on the main claim
A. According to the above facts as to the loan claim: (i) on October 4, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 10 million and damages for delay to the Plaintiff, with the loan amount of KRW 10 million, which is to be repaid to the Plaintiff in relation to the service at Uststru C Branch; and (ii) on November 25, 2013, the loan amount of KRW 5 million is to be repaid until December 25, 2013; and (iii) the remainder of KRW 5 million is to be repaid to the Plaintiff by December 25, 2013. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 10 million and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.
Luxembourg The defendant argued that the above loan certificate was prepared on the condition that the insurance contracts the defendant recruited from the plaintiff were transferred to 13 months, but the above insurance contracts were not transferred from the plaintiff, so the plaintiff's claim cannot be complied with.
It is recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were subject to the transfer of insurance contract at the time of the preparation of the above loan certificate.