beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 4, 2013 to May 1, 2015; and (b) May 2, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The facts of recognition show that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant on December 27, 2010 (hereinafter “instant loan”) did not dispute between the parties or [it appears that the Defendant also claims that C would lend the said money to the Defendant, other than the Plaintiff. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the confession of the Defendant (the reply submitted in the preparatory document as of June 29, 2015) that the Plaintiff borrowed from the Plaintiff alone was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise], comprehensively taking account of the following items in the evidence No. 3 through 5, part of the witness C’s testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings.
B. In addition, according to each of the above evidence, it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff as at June 4, 2013, which was claimed as the date of commencement of damages for delay, as at the time of the agreement on the instant loan, or as at the expiration of a considerable period after the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return and the due date. Therefore, according to the above facts acknowledged, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. On December 29, 2010, the defendant's defense 1) The defendant asserted that the defendant lent KRW 40 million to D on December 29, 2010, to the plaintiff or the plaintiff living together, and that the defendant returned the loan certificate for the loan of this case and paid KRW 40 million out of the loan of this case to D in accordance with the defendant's instruction. 2) The defendant's defense that the F, who was the head of the original division of the E hospital operated by the defendant, received the loan certificate for the loan of this case from C, was discarded. The defendant remitted KRW 40 million to D on December 29, 2010, is not in dispute between the parties, or is recognized according to the statement of subparagraph 1, the witness's testimony.
However, the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, remitted the above KRW 40 million to D on the ground of the loan to D.