beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 143,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 2, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around June 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a construction contract with the effect that the Defendant will build a manufacturing factory in the forest of 553,000,000 won for the construction cost (excluding surtax) and that the Defendant would build a manufacturing factory in the forest of 577-7 forest of the Gyeongsung-si, the area of the Sinsung-si owned by the Defendant.
B. However, the Plaintiff concluded a new construction contract with the same content as CMC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CM”), around October 2016, as the Plaintiff did not provide loans due to the Defendant’s credit problem, etc.
C. C.M. on October 17, 2016, by borrowing KRW 300 million from one bank, and deposited it into one bank account in the Plaintiff’s name. On the same day, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff will borrow KRW 130,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) at the maturity of November 7, 2016 and at the interest rate of KRW 1,30,000,000 on the same day. The Plaintiff, on the same day, remitted the Defendant KRW 130,000 to the Defendant, and KRW 13,00,000 on December 22, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 3, 6 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserted that since the plaintiff lent KRW 143,00,000 to the defendant, the defendant argued that the defendant should pay the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 143,000,000,000 and the delay damages therefor, and that the defendant agreed to obtain the loan of KRW 300,000 in the name of CM and pay KRW 130,000,000 among them to CM. However, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff should transfer the above money to CM through the defendant who is the land owner, and that there was no fact that he borrowed the above money from CM, only he received the above money from the plaintiff and transferred it again.
3. As long as the authenticity of the judgment document is recognized, the court has expressed its intent in accordance with its stated content, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the statement.