beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 800,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from August 18, 2010 to July 10, 2014, and the following.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
Plaintiff
On August 18, 2010, C, a director and a major shareholder of C, borrowed KRW 800 million from the Plaintiff Company as business capital and used it as casino gambling capital in the name of the Defendant, and requested the Defendant to lend KRW 800 million business capital to the Defendant on the side of the Plaintiff Company. On the same day, the Defendant received KRW 80 million (80 million cashier's checks) from the Plaintiff Company, and made and issued a loan certificate (Evidence 2) and receipt (Evidence 3) to borrow KRW 800 million from the Plaintiff Company as business capital.
[Attachment] Obligor: Defendant Creditor: The Plaintiff Company’s above obligor will borrow KRW 800 million from the Plaintiff Company on the following terms:
1. Amount borrowed: 80 million won;
2. The loan period: From August 18, 2010 to August 31, 2014.
3. The repayment date of principal: It shall be repaid in full by August 31, 2011;
4. The agreed interest rate: The annual interest rate shall be 6%, and the monthly interest payment date shall be the last day of each month.
5. Grounds for borrowing: The Defendant used the said KRW 800 million borrowed from the Plaintiff Company as casino gambling money, along with D on the date of borrowing the loan.
[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff sought compensation of KRW 800 million due to tort damages caused by deception because Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 16, 17, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole argument is as the cause of the claim in this case. ① The plaintiff lent KRW 800 million to the defendant on August 18, 2010 after the resolution of the board of directors of the plaintiff company dated August 16, 2010 after the resolution of the plaintiff company's company.
Since the defendant prepared a loan certificate of KRW 800 million, it shall be deemed that the defendant borrowed KRW 800 million from the plaintiff company, but the defendant borrowed the plaintiff's loan from the board of directors pursuant to Article 393 (1) of the Commercial Act.