beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from May 21, 2016 to July 10, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. On May 21, 2016, the fact that the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million to the Defendant on May 21, 2016, setting the due date for reimbursement of KRW 60 million and the interest rate of KRW 6% per annum, can be acknowledged by each entry in the evidence A1 to 4.
The plaintiff and the defendant jointly purchased the non-owned land of the Jungdong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City and decided to newly construct a warehouse. The purchase price and construction cost of the land shall be borne by 1/2 each, respectively. The above 50 million won was paid as the plaintiff's charge, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million and the amount calculated by applying each rate of 6% per annum from May 21, 2016 to July 10, 2018, the day on which the copy of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.
2. The defendant filed a lawsuit claiming settlement against the plaintiff and lost it in the first instance court. The defendant asserts that the defendant's claim for settlement of settlement amount against the plaintiff is currently proceeding with Seoul High Court No. 2018Na204204, and that the above loan claim is set off with the above settlement amount claim.
In light of the fact that ex officio a set-off defense is legitimate, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as a separate lawsuit before submitting the above defense in the principal lawsuit, and the fact that the Seoul High Court 2018Na204204 was tried by the defendant before submitting the above defense is no dispute between the parties. If the set-off defense is concurrently conducted with the separate lawsuit, it is necessary to examine the automatic claim separately, and if the trial is conducted concurrently, it is contrary to the economy of the lawsuit, and the judgment is recognized to have res judicata effect, it is necessary to judge the defense of the set-off submitted after analogical application of the prohibition of double lawsuit by analogy.
Therefore, the defendant's defense of set-off is dismissed.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.