beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The summary of the parties' arguments is that the defendant, who is pro-friendly on February 16, 2006, needs money for the payment of taxes, such as inheritance tax, and the defendant becomes due for the repayment of KRW 200 million.
4. 30. The defendant did not refund this up to the present date, claiming that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above KRW 200 million and damages for delay, and that the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 9 as well as the whole purport of the arguments, the fact that the defendant deposited KRW 20 million in the Asian athletes' account in Korea on February 20, 2006, and the defendant asserted on October 15, 2015 that the amount borrowed by himself was not KRW 20 million but KRW 20 million. According to the above facts of recognition, the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the defendant around February 16, 2006 can be ratified.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 20 million and delay damages.
The plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 180,000,000 for additional loans exceeding the above recognition scope.
According to the statements in evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6, the plaintiff withdrawn KRW 200 million from the collective investment securities account of one bank on the same day; the plaintiff withdrawn KRW 200 million from the above account; four copies of KRW 50 million check issued by the plaintiff while withdrawing KRW 200 million from the above account; the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 50 million at the locking point of the bank and the Asian playership; the defendant's account on February 23, 2006; and the same year.
3. Although it is recognized that KRW 43,00,00 was deposited on October 43, 200, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent money exceeding KRW 20 million to the Defendant solely on the basis of the above fact that the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, on behalf of Moman C on February 2, 2006, and delivered two copies of KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff.