beta
Text
1. The obligation under a monetary loan agreement of October 12, 2007 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is due.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 12, 2007, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 300,000,000 from the Defendant as the due date for payment on December 30, 2008 and KRW 1.7% per month (the annual interest rate of KRW 20.4%, the monthly interest rate of KRW 5,100,000). Of the above interest, KRW 1,50,000 per month, as a withholding agent, the Plaintiff withheld taxes such as income tax, and paid KRW 3,60,000 per month to the Defendant at the end of each month.
B. The Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant the sum of KRW 54,60,000 per month for 2008, the sum of KRW 28,800,000 per month, and KRW 28,800,000 per year for 209, and KRW 21,600,000 for 2010, KRW 3,600,000 for 2011, and KRW 10,800,000 for 20,000 for 2012, and KRW 20,000 for 20,000 for 20,000 for 20,000 for 20,000 for 2016, and the total amount of reimbursement is KRW 308,000,00 for 20 for 200.
C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the agreement of December 28, 201, stating that “the Plaintiff deducteds approximately KRW 100,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff from the principal borrowed KRW 300,000,000,000, and the Plaintiff shall grant the Defendant the principal of KRW 200,000,00 by establishing additional collateral mortgages on the real estate located in Hongcheoncheon-do.” (A evidence 1; hereinafter “the agreement of this case”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The plaintiff (the plaintiff's claim for principal of the lawsuit) had a approximately KRW 100,00,000 paid by the plaintiff through the agreement of this case deducted the principal of the loan of this case from the principal, and thereafter, the plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 200,000 to the defendant. Thus, there is no obligation for the loan of this case.
B. The instant agreement is merely a false document prepared for convenience in preparation for a tax investigation against the Defendant, and the Defendant did not actually deduct the principal amount of KRW 100,000,000 from the loan amount on December 28, 201.
Therefore, on May 15, 2018, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff as follows, totaling KRW 640,049,315 as of May 15, 201, and the principal of KRW 300,000.