beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,800,000 and the following day shall be 5% per annum from February 1, 2017 to March 8, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, in the account under the name of the Defendant, transferred KRW 35 million on August 6, 2015, KRW 480,000 on August 11, 2015, KRW 100,000 on October 26, 2015, KRW 50,000 on November 5, 2015, KRW 10,000 on November 5, 2015, KRW 50,000 on January 13, 2016, KRW 100,000 on January 13, 2016, KRW 100,000 on January 18, 2016, and KRW 15 million on March 30, 2016, respectively.
B. The Defendant remitted the Plaintiff’s account; KRW 680,00,000 to the Plaintiff’s account on April 29, 2016; KRW 680,000 on August 1, 2016; KRW 70,000 on October 4, 2016; KRW 690,000 on October 31, 2016; KRW 680,00 on November 30, 2016; and KRW 680,00 on December 29, 2017, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the issue
A. According to the evidence No. 3 of the judgment on the remittance amount (35 million won) of August 6, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that “C would pay interest of KRW 1 million per month to the Plaintiff on February 2016, and that it acquired KRW 35 million from the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff,” and that it was recognized that C filed a complaint, which was dismissed on March 16, 2016.
Meanwhile, in the instant case, the Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the Defendant that lent the above KRW 35 million to the Defendant, and after the receipt of the above KRW 3,500,000, the Plaintiff changed its assertion to the effect that “the Plaintiff lent KRW 35 million to C who is a partner upon the Defendant’s active solicitation, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation of KRW 35 million.”
In light of such a series of circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be recognized as the fact of guarantee by the Defendant. Thus, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted.
(A) The plaintiff clearly made it clear that C will not apply as a witness on the date of pleading despite the statement of this court, and there was no objective data that corresponds to the defendant's guarantee in addition to C's statement. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for resumption of pleading was rejected).
Money remitted (15 million won) from March 30, 2016.