beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,014,560 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 9, 2015 to August 30, 2016.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. A. Around May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased and operated the Dakdong under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “the instant Kakdong”) with the Defendant’s consent. Of KRW 35,000,000, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,000 in cash at the time of purchase, and the remainder of KRW 30,00,000,000 in cash was loaned from Hyundai Social Co., Ltd., and the Plaintiff agreed to repay the installments.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Hyundai machine Social Co., Ltd. in the name of the Defendant, and repaid KRW 1,014,560 on June 25, 2013, and paid the insurance premium under the name of the Defendant when purchasing the automobile insurance for the instant for the instant for the instant fork fork fork forging vehicles in the name of the Defendant, and borne all the expenses, such as transfer expenses, number plate replacement expenses, transportation expenses, and repair expenses.
C. On July 7, 2013, the Defendant heard her ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial fics) that the Plaintiff had a ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial ficial fics, and asked the Plaintiff to move the instant ficial ficial fics in the name of the Plaintiff. On July 20, 2013, the Defendant, who did not comply with the request, issued the instant ficial fics ficial fics, was carrying the instant
As a matter of course of obstruction of exercise of rights, the Defendant was charged with summary indictment (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Da8666), and received a summary order of KRW 1,00,000,000, as a matter of fact, that the Defendant had the Plaintiff’s possession or management, and interfered with the Plaintiff’s exercise of rights as to the instant forkive vehicle.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The main point of this safety defense is that the defendant is the Incheon District Court prior to the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit of this case.