beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 11,50,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 22, 2016 to September 8, 2016.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is obligated to repay the above loan to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 16,500,000 to the Defendant on June 22, 2015 and KRW 16,500,000, total of KRW 10,000 on June 30, 2015, is not a dispute between the parties.
2. The Plaintiff related to the horse site operating fund is requested to lend the horse site operating fund to the Defendant and the Defendant on May 28, 2015, and the same year.
6.1. 40 million won is claimed and the return is sought by asserting that the loan was made.
According to the statements in Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-2, the fact that the plaintiff remitted each of the above money to the defendant on the above day is recognized.
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent each of the above amounts to the defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of the lending.
Rather, in full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the witness C’s testimony, the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have transferred 50,000 won of the investment money to the account managed by the Defendant as above to D at the time of investing in the horse site operated by D, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 50,000 from the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff's assertion to this different purport is without merit.
3. It is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s partial repayment of KRW 5,00,000, out of the amount borrowed by the Plaintiff, does not dispute between the parties and that the repayment was appropriated for the repayment of the loan related to the purchase cost of the vehicle prior to the aforementioned payment.
(1) The plaintiff asserts that the above amount of KRW 3,00,000 out of KRW 5,00,000 was appropriated for the repayment of the amount loaned as the horse site operation fund, but the loan is not recognized, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's above assertion about appropriation for repayment is not accepted). 4. Thus, the defendant's loan that is still unpaid to the plaintiff.