beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 232,80,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 18, 2016 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On March 8, 2012, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate (Evidence A 1) to the Defendant to the following effect on March 8, 2012, and transferred KRW 232,80,000 to the Defendant’s wife’s account on the same day.
The loan certificate of KRW 232,800,000,000 (232,80,000) borrowed from the plaintiff and deposited the above amount into the account of the defendant's wife C. The repayment shall be made from time to time by the plaintiff's request.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff lent KRW 232,80,000 to the Defendant on March 8, 2012. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 232,80,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 18, 2016 to the date of full payment.
C. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion is merely a document prepared in the form, although the Defendant had made a loan certificate to the Plaintiff, and the said money is a money in the name of investment money remitted to the Defendant after the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant-friendly job offer D to entrust the Defendant with investment of stocks. However, the above money is deemed as a money in the name of investment money remitted to the Defendant. However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taken into account the entire purport of the arguments as to the order to submit financial transactions with respect to the witness D’s testimony, part of the witness D’s testimony, and the court’s response as of April 17, 2017, namely, as long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any counter-proof evidence that can deny the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da61574, Jan. 12, 2007).