beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay 57,500 US dollars to the Plaintiff at the rate of 15% per annum from October 19, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim
A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff is a legal entity that mainly engages in the distribution of products related to feed for agriculture, fisheries, and livestock. 2) The Defendant is a legal entity that mainly engages in the trade of non-ferrous metals and raw materials.
3. Upon receipt of the request from the Defendant that the Plaintiff lent funds necessary for the Defendant to import transit from Russia, the amount of USD 39,500 on the following day to the Defendant after the completion of the certificate No. 836 prepared by a notary public C belonging to the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office on July 4, 2016, prepared by the notary public C of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office, which was prepared by the Defendant
8. The sum of US$ 18,000 was remitted to US$ 57,500.
4) On September 17, 2017, the Defendant filed a claim for the return of USD 57,500 with the agreement of this case, which the Plaintiff had to return to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation on September 17, 2017. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to refund to the Plaintiff the amount of USD 57,500 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from October 19, 2017 to the date of full payment, following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, pursuant to the return agreement on the instant certificate, to the Plaintiff.
2. The defendant's assertion that USD 57,50 of this case was known as the money invested by the plaintiff in the business operated in the name of the defendant company in the name of the defendant company and transferred it to the whole E bank account as requested by D with the knowledge that D was transferred to the defendant company's passbook. However, it is not clear for the defendant to make the above argument for any purpose, but there is no evidence to support that US$ 57,500 was the money invested by the plaintiff to D, and the defendant's above assertion is acknowledged without examining the remaining points.