beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 48,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 21, 2010 to December 9, 2016.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the defendant, around 2005, recommended the plaintiff's wife C and D to make an investment by promising that "to purchase an orchard located in Ulsan-gun E within three months if it invests KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 won is paid to the defendant." Since then, the defendant requested the return of the investment amount on behalf of C, and the defendant demanded the return of the investment amount to the defendant, and the defendant prepared a loan certificate with the purport that the amount of KRW 48,330,00,000,000,000, which is the amount of interest, etc. invested by C, by January 20, 2010.
Therefore, as prescribed by the above loan certificate, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 48 million won with 5% interest per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from January 21, 2010 to December 9, 2016, the delivery date of the original copy of the written application for the payment order of this case, and 15% interest per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant prepared a loan certificate as above, but did not actually receive money, and therefore does not have the obligation to pay the loan. However, the plaintiff's claim does not seek the return of the money borrowed from the plaintiff, but seeks payment of the money agreed to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff by returning or repaying the money invested by the plaintiff Eul, which is the plaintiff's wife, to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the money as stated in the loan certificate to the plaintiff according to the agreement, regardless of whether the defendant actually received the money from the plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Conclusion