beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 32.5 million won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from July 12, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 2.5 million from the Plaintiff on July 26, 2010, and KRW 30 million on November 2, 2010, respectively, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 32.5 million and damages for delay.
B. Around October 15, 2010, the Defendant, who served as C Team C Team D of Fran Petroleum Chemical Claim, was called by the Plaintiff at the F site in charge of construction by the Plaintiff Company E, and delivered such information to the Plaintiff according to the direction of the superior of Fho Petroleum chemical, and the Plaintiff wired the amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant at its expense, and the Defendant does not personally borrow KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff.
(i) The Fran Petroleum Chemical must pay the above money to the Plaintiff: Provided, That the Defendant’s personal use of the transferred money is recognized). In addition, the Defendant’s 2.5 million won received from the Plaintiff on July 26, 2010 also was received as the Defendant’s subsidization of business expenses, not the money borrowed individually.
Therefore, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant, who worked as Geum Petroleum Chemical C Team D, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2.5 million per annum from July 26, 2010 to the date of full payment (the Defendant’s wife G account) and KRW 30 million on November 2, 2010 (the Defendant’s relative H account was transferred to the Defendant’s relative H account). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 32.5 million in total and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from July 12, 2013 to the date of full payment after the original copy of the instant payment order was served.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.