beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 80,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 27, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. As to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, around May 2012, the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff’s father B to lend KRW 100 million necessary for the construction cost of the Jeju-si Down Housing. On June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million to the Defendant on the condition that Nonparty E was jointly and severally guaranteed on June 1, 2012 and repaid until March 30, 2013.
Since September 2017, the Plaintiff seized F land owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant returned KRW 20 million.
B. In a case where the authenticity of the judgment document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act in its content should be recognized unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, even if the existence and content of the declaration of intent indicated in the document are clear and acceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602, Oct. 13, 200). In this case, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff (Evidence A) and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the remainder, excluding the amount of KRW 20 million paid to the Plaintiff according to the certificate of borrowing.
2. As to the defendant's assertion
가. 피고 주장 피고는 빌라를 건축하여 분양할 목적으로 2012. 7. 24. 소외 G으로부터 건축허가가 나지 않을 경우 매매계약을 무효로 하는 조건으로 구리시 H 토지를 7억 5,000만 원에 샀다.
At the time, the defendant borrowed the down payment of KRW 30 million, which is necessary for the sales contract to B (the father of the plaintiff) and delivered the loan certificate to repay KRW 100,000,000,000, including the profit and the existing loan money of KRW 30,000,000, which is required for the sales contract. B also received the loan certificate on the premise that the sales contract is valid, and on July 24, 2012, transferred the amount of KRW 30 million to G directly.
However, the above sales contract became null and void due to the lack of a construction permit, and G returned 30 million won to B, which became null and void.
B. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 23.8 million from G until January 2014.