beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 12% per annum from December 1, 2012 to November 30, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 29, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to Nonparty C’s name account (new bank E) designated by Nonparty C, and on April 10, 2006, KRW 50 million to Nonparty C’s name (new bank F).
B. The defendant company commenced to remit 500,000 won to the plaintiff on January 26, 2006 for the same year.
4. From January 2008 to May 16, 2012, each KRW 500,000 was remitted in the name of Defendant Company C, C, and G, and on April 10, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred additional KRW 50,000 to C, one million per month, from April 28, 2006 to December 18, 2007, and the Defendant transferred most of the money to the Plaintiff by most of the Defendant Company from January 2008 to May 16, 2012.
C. At the time of June 25, 2013, Nonparty I entered into a contract for the acquisition of the Defendant Company by acquiring the shares of the Defendant Company from Nonparty J, who was the representative director and the shareholder of the Defendant Company, with the total acquisition amount of KRW 490 million, and the down payment is KRW 50 million, the intermediate payment of KRW 130 million, and the remainder is replaced by the Defendant Company’s obligations at the time of the Defendant Company. Nonparty I included the obligation amount of KRW 100 million against the Plaintiff in the details of the Defendant Company’s obligations.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap 2, 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 100 million and the agreed interest or delay damages, as the Plaintiff lent KRW 120 million to the Defendant Company on condition that 12% interest shall be paid at the request of the Defendant Company C, which was an executive officer of the Defendant Company.
After taking over the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company did not have any objective grounds to deem that the Defendant Company borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, such as a loan certificate, as a result of the actual inspection after taking over the Defendant Company, and constitutes a share acquisition price.