beta
Text
1. The defendant's KRW 77,632,496 and about the plaintiff 5% per annum from April 22, 2020 to September 23, 2020, and the following.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be admitted in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings:
On July 14, 2015, the Defendant remitted KRW 20,000 to the Plaintiff via the account in the name of C, and around September 6, 2015, remitted KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff. around October 12, 2017, the Defendant remitted KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 95,000,000 in total by remitting KRW 25,00,000 on April 3, 2019.
(hereinafter referred to as “the remittance amount of the instant case”). (b)
The Plaintiff first transferred KRW 20,000 to the Defendant on August 25, 2015 and September 15, 2015, respectively, after receiving the remittance of KRW 1,300,000,000, respectively. From October 22, 2015 to December 31, 2017, the Plaintiff wired KRW 2,700,000 each month, from January 29, 2018 to December 31, 2018, and remitted KRW 4,70,000 each month, and in addition, remitted KRW 2,00,000 each month from January 14, 2017 and January 15, 2018 to December 31, 2018.
C. The Plaintiff, on January 31, 2019, remitted KRW 5,00,00, KRW 500,000 on February 1, 2019, KRW 500,000 on February 28, 2019, KRW 5,000,00 on March 14, 2019, KRW 50,000 on April 25, 2019, KRW 50,000 on April 4, 2019, KRW 3,30,000 on April 24, 2019, and KRW 5,000 on April 3, 200, KRW 5,000 on April 30, 200, and KRW 5,000 on April 30, 205, KRW 205,00 on May 25, 2019, respectively, to the Defendant.
Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff on February 12, 202 on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to deem that the Plaintiff had the ability to repay the instant remittance from the Defendant at the time of borrowing the remittance amount and had the intent to acquire money by deception, stating that there was a lot of profits from the law firm replacement works even though the Plaintiff did not have the business entity, and that such investment would have been made by deceiving KRW 95,00,000 by deceiving the Defendant.
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiff borrowed the remittance amount of this case from the defendant and paid a total of KRW 183,00,000 as interest.