beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, on May 12, 2007, lent KRW 30,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the Defendant on July 12, 2007, with the due date set as of July 12, 2007, and the due date set as of September 20, 2007, with the due date set as of October 15, 2007 (hereinafter “the instant loan”) as of October 15, 2007, did not conflict between the parties, and received KRW 8,00,000,000 out of the above KRW 30,000,00. The Plaintiff itself recognized that the Plaintiff himself was paid KRW 30,000.
Therefore, barring any other circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 42,000,000 (=22,000,000) for each of the above loans (=20,000,000).
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense for repayment
A. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion deposited KRW 10,300,00 in the Plaintiff’s account through D on June 26, 2007, and deposited KRW 19,80,000 in total on four occasions from June 14, 2007 to September 4, 2007, and repaid KRW 19,80,000 in the Plaintiff’s account. The Defendant deposited KRW 23,050,000 in total nine times from October 8, 207 to November 10, 208, and deposited KRW 3,50,000 in the Plaintiff’s account and deposited all of the instant loans into the Plaintiff’s account as the Plaintiff’s respective E-based loan account.
B. The Defendant, through D on June 26, 2007, deposited KRW 10,300,000 to the Plaintiff’s account, and deposited KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s E account via F on November 12, 2008, there is no dispute between the parties. In light of the witness’s testimony and the overall purport of the pleadings in the above facts, the above KRW 10,30,000 was paid as repayment for the instant loan No. 1, and the above KRW 3,00,000 was paid as repayment for the instant loan No. 2.
On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the above KRW 10,300,000 lent to the defendant around March 26, 2007 by the plaintiff and the interest thereon were paid. However, with respect to the loans of the above KRW 10,000 and the above KRW 10,000,000, the plaintiff received the above KRW 10,000 from the defendant.