beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 89,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 12, 2017 to July 18, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff received a letter or loan certificate from the Defendant, respectively, by lending the Defendant a total of KRW 8.5 million as follows.
Serial Lending Date: 2% each month after the second month after November 4, 201 based on the interest rate agreement on the lending date; KRW 10 million on January 9, 2012; KRW 30 million on June 9, 2012; KRW 40 million on the confession of KRW 5 million on April 3, 2012; KRW 5 million on October 30, 2012; KRW 5 million on the confession of KRW 5 million on December 30, 2012; KRW 5 million on the confession of KRW 80,000 on June 30, 2013; KRW 600,00 on June 15, 2013; and KRW 80,000 on the confession of KRW 15,50,000 on June 30, 2013;
B. Meanwhile, the defendant is the name of 4 million won when the card price generated by using the credit card in the name of the plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 89 million (i.e., loan KRW 85 million) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from April 12, 2017 to July 18, 2017, which is a date following the delivery date of the Plaintiff’s written application for modification of the purport of the claim and cause of the claim, as of April 6, 2017, which the Plaintiff seeks.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s credit card usage amount is KRW 13,199,00,000. However, the evidence No. 3 (the content of the credit card use) cannot be used as evidence since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and the statement of evidence No. 6 alone is insufficient to recognize it. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part exceeding KRW 4 million recognized earlier is rejected.
B. As to this, the Defendant borrowed KRW 25 million from the Plaintiff, but the remainder of the money.