beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,627,867 as well as 5% per annum from August 1, 2013 to April 23, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts of recognition may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6 and Eul evidence No. 2:
The Plaintiff lent KRW 60,575,000 to the Defendant totaling KRW 60,575,000 as stated in the attached sheet of calculation.
B. The Plaintiff received money from the Defendant as stated in the “paid money” column in the attached sheet of calculation.
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the borrower lent money to the defendant as to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that he only received money from the plaintiff through his account upon C's request and transferred it to C.
In light of the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) monetary transactions with the Plaintiff were made through the Defendant’s account; (b) the money received from the Plaintiff was not delivered to C in full; and (c) the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the money to the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant sent the Plaintiff the word “Isri-gu, Isri-gu, Isri-gu, Isri-gu, Isri-gu, Isri-gu, Isri-be.” In full view of these facts, the borrower of the money is the Defendant as seen above;
Therefore, the defendant is liable to repay the money borrowed to the plaintiff.
B. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of the loan lent to the Defendant was KRW 60,575,00 as seen earlier. 2) As to the interest on the loan, the Plaintiff, while lending the loan from the Defendant, received the interest on the advance payment or the average of KRW 3.4% interest (which means the average of KRW 3.4% interest per month in light of the amount without clearly claiming whether it is a monthly unit or annual unit). The Defendant asserted that only 5% interest per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act was recognized because there was no interest agreement.
There is an interest agreement only with the statement of Gap evidence No. 4.