beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,100,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 3, 2016 to November 29, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff: (a) lent a total of KRW 74.3 million to the Defendant as indicated in the following table (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (b) received reimbursement from the Defendant in total of KRW 10,11 million on May 2, 2016; and (c) KRW 10,000,000 from the Defendant on May 3, 2016.
(C) Facts having no dispute, Gap 1 and 2’s statement, and the purport of the entire pleadings). Temporary loans Nos. 10,000,000 won 5, Jul. 28, 2015, 2015, and KRW 3,000,000 on July 3, 2015, 2015, and KRW 60,000 on February 50, 2015, and KRW 30,000 on March 20, 2016, and KRW 10,000,000 on March 10, 2015 (i.e., loans of KRW 7,20,000,000 on April 20, 2015; and (ii) the Defendant has no special obligation to pay the Plaintiff the remaining damages for delay (i.e., KRW 3,00,000,000 on March 10, 2016).
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant repaid KRW 2.1 million to the Plaintiff is a defense that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 2.1 million, and according to the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the Defendant’s name, the Defendant’s defense is reasonable, on March 11, 2015, that KRW 2.1 million was transferred from the account under the Plaintiff’s name to the account under the Plaintiff’s name, and that KRW 2.1 million was repaid out of the instant loan.
B. The Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 2.5 million from September 2015 to January 2016, 2016, and thus, the Defendant should deduct the above KRW 2.5 million from the instant loan. However, as alleged by the Defendant, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 2.5 million, as argued by the Defendant, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.
C. The defendant asserts to the effect that the payment of dental treatment fees in lieu of the defendant shall be deducted from the loan in this case, because the plaintiff paid the above one million won for dental treatment with credit card issued in the name of the defendant.
Therefore, the plaintiff himself is also a dental treatment for the credit card issued in the name of the defendant.