beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked, and
Reasons
1. On October 6, 201, the Plaintiff leased KRW 20 million to the Defendant on or after the due date for payment of one month after October 6, 201 (hereinafter “instant loan”) recognized that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the entire purport of the pleading in Gap evidence No. 1 was taken into account. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff voluntarily recognized the fact that he/she received KRW 5 million from the Defendant.
Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff 15 million won and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The summary of the assertion: (a) C repaid the amount of KRW 10 million on behalf of the Defendant.
② The Defendant has a claim for a loan of KRW 2.7 million to the Plaintiff (= KRW 5 million, KRW 3.7 million, KRW 1.2 million), which is set off against the claim claim of this case.
B. First of all, we examine the argument.
The fact that the Plaintiff received five million won through C does not conflict between the parties, and as prescribed by Article 469 of the Civil Act, the repayment of the obligation may be made by a third party as well. The requirement that the third party had the intent to repay the obligation of the third party and extinguish the obligation of the third party is that the third party has performed the obligation of the third party, and such intent should be expressed through the designation of repayment indicating that the obligation of the third party is the repayment of the obligation of the third party. However, if the obligee knew that the third party was to perform the obligation of the third party while receiving the obligation of the third party, it can be deemed that there was
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da71558 Decided February 11, 2010). As to whether the Plaintiff’s KRW 5 million paid from C is appropriated for the repayment of the instant loan, the health care room is as follows: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) the purport of the entire pleading as a whole is considered based on the witness C’s testimony; (c) the fact that the Plaintiff and C did not have any monetary transaction other than the instant case.