beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On April 21, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 170 million from the Defendant, and issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 300 million to the Defendant, and set up a collateral security right of KRW 300 million with respect to a unit of housing with a face value of KRW 247.8 square meters and its ground multi-family housing owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).
Although the Defendant had received reimbursement of KRW 80 million among them, the Defendant submitted a claim statement to the effect that he was unable to receive the principal amount of KRW 300 million as a mortgagee in the course of voluntary auction of the instant real estate in the course of voluntary auction, thereby deceiving the court and receiving dividends of KRW 300 million. Therefore, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 80 million.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages or unjust enrichment equivalent to the above 80 million won.
2. The finding of facts and the determination of the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 2.3 million from the Defendant, a person who was unaware of April 21, 2009, through the brokerage of the broker; (b) provided the instant real estate with a promissory note of KRW 300 million at face value; (c) the Defendant was paid KRW 80 million out of KRW 1.2 million that the Plaintiff remitted to D on February 26, 2010, as a partial repayment of the said loan; (d) the Defendant submitted in the course of the voluntary auction of the instant real estate on July 9, 2013, to the effect that the Defendant was paid KRW 30 million to the mortgagee who was unable to receive the principal amount of KRW 30 million as the mortgagee; or (e) received the dividends of KRW 300 million as the principal amount of the said claim on July 9, 2013, by integrating the purport of the evidence No. 3-2, 3, 4, and 6-1 through No. 115.
However, the defendant asserts that the above 2.3 million won was determined at the rate of 2% per month at the time of lending. Although there is no disposition document regarding the fact that there was an interest agreement, it is certain in light of the above lending circumstances.