beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant and the Defendant’s son repeatedly borrowed money from the past D.
B. Around May 2015, D transferred to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 7,700,000, excluding the claims established through litigation proceedings between D and the Defendant, out of the loans or security deposit claims against the Defendant, and notified the Defendant thereof.
【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 9 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) ① KRW 1,00,000 on August 24, 2012; (b) KRW 4,000,00 on August 27, 2012; (c) KRW 500,00 on August 5, 2013; (d) KRW 300,00 on August 19, 2013; and (e) KRW 4,00,000 on August 27, 2013; (b) KRW 600,000 on October 21, 2013; or (c) KRW 7,700,000 on the obligation to return borrowed money; or (d) the Plaintiff acquired a claim equivalent to KRW 7,700,00 from D.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 7,700,000 and damages for delay.
B. In full view of the allegations in paragraph (1) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate to the effect that the Defendant borrowed KRW 1,000,000 from D by means of taking one cash check (one million won) from D on August 24, 2012. Thus, the Defendant can confirm the fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 1,00,000 from D on August 24, 2012. In other words, the circumstances recognized by D by the statement in subparagraph 8, namely, the fact that D exchanged the above cashier’s check on the date of borrowing the above certificate in cash is insufficient to reverse the aforementioned recognition.
② In full view of the purport of the pleadings as to the allegations in paragraphs (5) and (5), the Defendant’s request to F to borrow KRW 4,00,000 from D on August 27, 2012 and used KRW 2,00,000 among them, and the Defendant guaranteed F’s obligation to return the above borrowed money.