대여금반환 등
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from August 30, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff deposited KRW 50,00,000 in the account under the name of the defendant on Nov. 18, 2005 at the request of the defendant, and thereafter the defendant did not have any particular dispute between the parties other than the above KRW 50,000 on Jul. 24, 2007 when the plaintiff demanded and urged the repayment of the obligation. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19650, Aug. 28, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 2100, Nov. 10, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 21700, Dec. 28, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 22175, Jul. 10, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22175, Jul. 23, 2010>
In full view of the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff lent 50 million won to the defendant on November 18, 2005, and the defendant is confirmed to have paid money several times as interest upon the plaintiff's demand.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 50 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
2. As to the Defendant’s assertion and determination, the Defendant asserted that, upon receiving a recommendation from the Defendant to make an investment from the Defendant, the said KRW 50 million was invested in C through the Plaintiff, and did not lend it to the Defendant.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, it is recognized that the defendant deposited all of the above KRW 50,000 which the defendant received from the plaintiff to C, and C prepared a promissory note Nos. 50,000 for face value against the plaintiff as the debtor on July 10, 2006.
However, solely on the ground that C actually uses the above KRW 50 million expressed its intention to repay to the Plaintiff, it is merely paid to C as an investment, and the Defendant is merely a mere introduction of it. The entry of the evidence No. 5 is difficult to believe it as it is. As seen above, C is even after preparing a promissory note No. 5,000 won against the Plaintiff.