beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 44,00,000 and KRW 10,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,000 from September 1, 201, and KRW 10,00,000.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 65 million to the Defendant four times from June 22, 2007 to July 31, 2007 (hereinafter “instant remittance”).
B. On July 27, 2007, the Defendant returned KRW 21 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant refund”).
C. On August 3, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall be deemed to have borrowed from the Plaintiff the remainder of 44 million won after deducting the refund of this case from the amount of remittance of this case. The Defendant shall be deemed to have borrowed from the Plaintiff, and KRW 10 million on August 31, 2010, and the same year.
9. The agreement was made to pay each of the KRW 10 million on 30.30,000,000 on October 31, 10 of the same year, KRW 10 million on November 30 of the same year, and KRW 4 million on December 31 of the same year.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated on September 1, 2010 for KRW 44 million and KRW 10 million among them from October 1, 201, for KRW 10 million from November 1, 201, for KRW 10 million from December 1, 2010, for KRW 10 million from December 1, 201, for KRW 4 million from January 1, 201, and for KRW 4 million from January 1, 201 to KRW 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act until March 31, 2015, and for KRW 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
B. The defendant asserted that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to set off the plaintiff's claim of this case and other claims against the defendant against the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.