beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 1, 2014 to February 2, 2016.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Defendant, on March 27, 2012, drafted a letter of payment stating that the Defendant would pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff at the brokerage consulting cost (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”) by April 30, 2012 is either not in dispute between the parties or can be acknowledged according to the statement in the evidence No. 1.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that, at the time, when the defendant lent KRW 5 million, the plaintiff prepared the letter of payment of this case while paying KRW 30 million in total, including consulting cost of KRW 25 million received from C.
It was true that the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff. However, the instant payment note was prepared in the sense that the Plaintiff would be paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff upon receiving KRW 50 million from C. Since it did not actually receive KRW 50 million from C, it is not only that the Plaintiff would be paid to the Plaintiff, but also that the said KRW 50 million would not be paid to the Plaintiff, and it constitutes a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act since it was decided to receive bonds from C under the pretext of arranging the bonds. Accordingly, the instant payment note is null and void due to a tort.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 5 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.
However, as to whether the Defendant is liable to pay the remaining amount of KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, upon considering the purport of the entire arguments as to whether the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 25 million, was able to introduce her kind of relationship to the Defendant and C, and to borrow KRW 2.5 billion for real estate purchase by introducing her kind of relationship with the Defendant and C. The Plaintiff received money from the Defendant through C as real estate consulting expenses. In this sense, the Defendant paid KRW 25 million among them to the Plaintiff when receiving additional KRW 50 million from C, and in this sense, the instant payment memorandum was issued.