beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 9 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from June 4, 2015 to October 7, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff drafted a written agreement with the Defendant on April 25, 2007, stating that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 40 million (the amount of KRW 30 million paid as part of the purchase price and KRW 10 million) to the Plaintiff by July 31, 2007 (hereinafter “instant written agreement”).
B. On June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant with the amount of investment in land D, E, and F in Gangwon-do.
C. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 10 million on June 29, 2007, KRW 10 million on August 24, 2007, KRW 10 million on September 13, 2007, KRW 15 million on February 15, 2008, KRW 5 million on February 26, 2008, KRW 3 million on May 5, 2009, KRW 500,000 on October 9, 201, KRW 200 million on May 19, 2010, KRW 100 million on May 2015, 2015, respectively.
From around 2006 to 2011, while living together with G as a licensed real estate agent, the Defendant engaged in the business of real estate brokerage business, etc. in the office of licensed real estate agents (mutual name: H real estate) of G management. The Defendant and G, while engaging in the business of buying and selling brokerage, buying and selling agency, etc., deposited money and transferred using the financial account in the name of the Defendant, and the real estate sales contract was prepared in the name of the Defendant
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (a letter of agreement, and the defendant's seal imprint part of the document is presumed to have established the authenticity of the whole document because the defendant's seal imprints the defendant's seal without the defendant's permission, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it) and Gap evidence No. 2 (a document's authenticity is presumed to have been established as a whole because G arbitrarily affixed the defendant's seal and forged the receipt without the defendant's permission, but the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it).