beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 353,825,360 as well as 18% per annum from June 2, 2013 to July 4, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. According to Gap evidence No. 1 (including the branch number) as to the cause of the claim, according to the following: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) around November 30, 2009; (c) KRW 100 million on November 30, 201; and (d) KRW 50 million on January 13, 201; (c) KRW 100 million on January 31, 201; (d) KRW 20 million on March 15, 201; (e) KRW 60 million on July 13, 201; and (e) KRW 50 million on October 31, 201; and (e) KRW 600,000,000 on each of the instant loans lent to the Plaintiff without any special obligation to return each of the instant loans KRW 3 million on December 15, 201; and (e) KRW 500,300,000,000.
B. According to the reasoning of the judgment on Defendant B’s defense of repayment (1) and the entire purport of the pleadings, Defendant B is recognized to have repaid each of the instant loans to the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff’s husband and wife, as shown in the attached Table 1 (D is the Plaintiff’s wife, and E is the Plaintiff’s wife).
Meanwhile, there is no evidence to prove that there was a designation or agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B at the time of the above repayment, the above repayment amount shall be appropriated in order of interest and principal pursuant to Article 479 and Article 4777 subparag. 4 of the Civil Act. However, since there is no time limit for repayment between the Plaintiff’s respective loans of this case, the repayment amount shall be appropriated in proportion to the interest and the principal in proportion to the same amount. In the end, the repayment amount of each of the loans of this case as indicated in the separate sheet No. 2 (referring to the Plaintiff’s respective loans of this case as “1 or bonds 10” in the order of the lending date, and a small number of items in the calculation is omitted) shall be remaining as of June 1, 2013 when the Defendant’s repayment amount is appropriated in order of each of the loans of this case by the Plaintiff.
(2) Furthermore, Defendant B exceeding the above recognition scope, and Defendant B, May 15, 2007, to the Plaintiff.