beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 500,000 as well as its annual rate from April 3, 2018 to August 7, 2018, and the next day.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the request for loans
A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) from June 9, 2017 to October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff directly remitted to the Defendant, or remitted to the Defendant’s relative; or (b) lent KRW 26,122,70 over 34 times in total, as shown in the attached Table, in lieu of the Defendant’s payment of electricity charges, interest on loans, purchase price of clothes, and expenses incurred in music record production, which the Defendant bears at the Defendant’s request.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 26,122,770.
B. Although there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff remitted money to the defendant or the defendant's relative or paid expenses for the defendant as shown in the attached Table, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above money was lent to the defendant, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise cannot be accepted.
2. Determination as to the claim for damages
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 7, the Plaintiff: (a) operated a restaurant from October 16, 2017 to the name of “E” (hereinafter “E”); (b) the Defendant provided a residence space on the instant restaurant operated by the Plaintiff; (c) the Plaintiff was detained on Jan. 4, 2018 and was detained on bail on January 19, 2018 due to the suspicion of assaulting the Defendant by carrying dangerous articles, and was detained by the Defendant on bail; (d) the Defendant replaced all locks of the instant restaurant on January 11, 2018 to prevent the Plaintiff from entering the instant restaurant by replacing it; and (e) the Plaintiff closed down the instant restaurant on March 7, 2018.
According to the above facts, the defendant's act of replacing all entrance doors of the restaurant of this case to prevent the plaintiff from entering the restaurant of this case constitutes a tort.