beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from September 13, 2014 to September 30, 2015.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence No. 1 and No. 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is recognized to have lent KRW 100 million to the defendant on October 16, 2008. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million to the plaintiff unless there are special circumstances.
The defendant received KRW 100 million in the name of the plaintiff, but the above KRW 100 million was transferred from D to D in the name of the plaintiff in relation to the e-repair and repair work performed by the plaintiff on March 2009, as it was not obligated to return illegal consideration because it constitutes an illegal consideration since it was received in the name of the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff in relation to the e-repair and repair work performed by the plaintiff in the newanan-gun-gun-gun-gun around March 2009. Even if it is not so, when the contract was awarded between D and D, it would be settled after the construction work and return the KRW 100 million. Accordingly, the defendant argued that all of the KRW 100 million were paid to D through the account in the name of the plaintiff and D. However, the testimony of
It is not sufficient to recognize that KRW 100 million deposited in the name of the plaintiff or in the name of the plaintiff sent to D, not the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize this. Thus, the defendant's above assertion
In addition, the defendant asserts that even if the amount of KRW 100 million is a loan as alleged by the plaintiff, the period of prescription has expired after the lapse of five years from October 16, 2008, the lending date, but even according to the defendant's argument, around November 26, 2009, the plaintiff prepared and issued a loan certificate for KRW 100 million to the plaintiff. This constitutes the approval of the obligation, which is a cause for interrupting prescription, and thus, the fact that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on August 27, 2014, which is five years after the lapse of the period of prescription, is obvious in this court, and the defendant's assertion
Therefore, the defendant's loan amounting to KRW 100 million and the plaintiff's claim from September 13, 2014 to September 30, 2015.