beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay 50,000,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its payment from November 1, 2014.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. Basic facts 1) C and D are the Plaintiff’s children, E are the Defendant’s wife, and F are the Defendant’s children. 2) The Plaintiff used the Plaintiff’s national bank account, C’s national bank account, D’s national bank account, and agricultural bank account and agricultural cooperative account from 2009, and the Defendant and E traded money by using the Defendant’s national bank account and agricultural cooperative account and F.
3) The Plaintiff joined and paid the fraternity by E three times in the form of a fraternity. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7, Eul's evidence No. 8-1 through 3, Eul's evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) from around 2009, the Plaintiff traded money with the Defendant and E. The Plaintiff traded money by using the passbook of his own, son, and C, his father, and son, and the Defendant and E traded money by using the passbook of F, the Defendant and son. The sum of the money deposited by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s side includes KRW 428,530,000 (the sum of the money deposited by the Plaintiff to the Defendant) (the amount includes KRW 40,00,000,000 for whom E did not pay the Plaintiff as the time deposit amount).
350,050,000 won (or KRW 90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s side as a counterclaim).
A) Therefore, the Plaintiff should be paid KRW 78,480,00,000, out of the money deposited by the Defendant while the Defendant repaid all the money claimed as a counterclaim. 2) Money transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was conducted through the Defendant’s agricultural bank account. Unless the Defendant seeks as a counterclaim, monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was completed.
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was not a transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but E was a transaction with the Plaintiff using the Defendant’s passbook. Thus, the Plaintiff’s principal claim on the premise that the instant settlement amount is a transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.