beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,00,000 and KRW 20,000,000 among the above money and KRW 43,000,000 shall be the Plaintiff from May 1, 2016, and KRW 23,00,00.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 30, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 24,000,000 to the Defendant, KRW 15,000,000 on January 22, 2015, and KRW 40,000 on February 4, 2015, respectively.
B. On February 16, 2016, the Defendant prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing KRW 30,000,000 to the effect that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 23,000,000 until April 30, 2016, respectively, until November 26, 2016.
(hereinafter “this case’s loan certificate”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant borrowed KRW 24,00,000 from the Plaintiff on December 30, 2014, but did not repay it.
In addition, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to the effect that “The sales price of 15,000,000 square meters and 156 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”) prior to Sejong City is KRW 80,000,000, a half of the sales price is to be purchased together.” However, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to the effect that the Plaintiff would lend KRW 15,000,000 as there is a shortage of money in the payment,” and the Plaintiff remitted KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant as the purchase price for the land of this case, and KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant as the purchase price for the land of the Plaintiff.
However, later, the sales price of the land No. 1 of this case was 64,000,000 won.
In order to preserve the excess amount of the loan and the purchase price of the above land, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a certificate of the loan in this case with the purport that the Plaintiff would pay 24,000,000 won as of December 30, 2014 (hereinafter “the first loan”), 15,000,000 won as of January 22, 2015, and 23,000,000 won as of the land purchase price received in excess (hereinafter “the second loan”) to the Plaintiff by November 26, 2016, respectively, for the purpose of making up for the excess amount of the loan and the purchase price of the above land.
Nevertheless, the defendant paid only KRW 10,000,000 on March 17, 2016 and delays the performance of the remaining obligations.
Therefore, the defendant has already been at KRW 53,000,000 according to the loan certificate of this case.