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, and
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 3, 2011, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 450 million from C Union (hereinafter “instant KRW 450 million”) from the Plaintiff, and remitted the said money to the Defendant’s H Union account, the Plaintiff’s punishment number.
B. On the same day, the Plaintiff was granted a loan of KRW 795 million from H association as security, which is the Defendant’s spouse, to whom the Plaintiff’s punishment is the Defendant’s spouse, and transferred the said money to H association account on the same day.
C. On September 7, 2012, the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million under the name of Limited Company E (hereinafter “E”), and KRW 25 million under the name of the Defendant on April 28, 2015, respectively.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, and 6 evidence (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 450,000,000 to the Defendant and to receive the principal and interest, including the interest of KRW 6.67% per annum imposed on the Defendant and the Plaintiff with respect to C Cooperatives.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 450 million and delay damages of this case.
B. Defendant 450 million won in the instant case is not a loan to the Defendant, but not a loan to the Defendant, where the Plaintiff invested in E through the Defendant’s share of 30%, and there is no agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff to return it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.
3. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances, evidence Nos. 8, 2, 3, 5, and 6, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff was determined to have lent KRW 450 million to the Defendant or agreed to receive a refund from the Defendant at least; and (b) the evidence submitted by the Defendant, such as the statement Nos. 4, 50 million, is insufficient to reverse the judgment.
① The Defendant’s instant case from the Plaintiff on November 3, 2011.