beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from August 15, 2019 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was a deader of the Defendant, and the Defendant reported a marriage with Nonparty C, the Plaintiff’s children, around January 20, 2005, but was married on or around July 3, 2014.
B. On July 26, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 32 million to the Defendant with an apartment owned by the Plaintiff as collateral, and transferred the cash possessed by the said loan to the Defendant on July 27, 2011, which is the following day (hereinafter “the instant money”).
C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 140,000 as of August 30, 201, KRW 140,000, KRW 140,000 as of September 26, 201, KRW 140,00 as of October 24, 201, and KRW 140,00 as of November 22, 201.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6, 8, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff's newspaper result, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The summary of the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff lent KRW 37 million to the defendant on July 27, 201, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan of KRW 37 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant did not borrow the above loan from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is a donation to the defendant. b) Even if the money is deemed as a loan, the plaintiff promised to pay the above money if I would like to continuously cause a financial accident. Thus, the plaintiff agreed to pay the money if I would like to pay the money if I would like to continuously cause a financial accident. Thus, the actual borrower of the money in this case is not C, and there is no fact that the defendant and C did not claim the division of property as the defendant's debt or joint debt in a lawsuit following the divorce between the defendant and C. If there is such assertion, C also becomes liable for the division of the money in this case.