beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000, and the annual rate of KRW 5% from January 11, 2014 to June 26, 2015, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the claim of KRW 40 million
A. According to each of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 40 million from Eul on July 3, 2012 until December 20, 2013, and the defendant may recognize the fact that he/she prepared a loan certificate while guaranteeing the above debt against the plaintiff by Eul on the same day. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million and damages for delay.
B. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion is consistent with the signature of the guarantor column of the above loan certificate, but it is argued that no amount is specified in the amount of the above loan certificate. Thus, according to the above evidence, the above loan certificate’s “the loan certificate, the debtor’s name, resident number, address, and amount: 0 million won (40,000,00), the guarantor’s name, resident number, and address: and etc. are written with the upper body; on the other hand, “C, D-(Omission), Daegu North-gu EAPT-507, 2, 2-(Omission), 141-802” is written with another body; and on March 20, 2013, which is the initial repayment date indicated on the above loan certificate, the Defendant changed on March 20, 2013 to the “312.”
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from January 11, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case and the copy of the complaint of this case until June 26, 2015, which is the day of the ruling of this case where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute on the scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform.
2. Determination on the claim KRW 10 million
A. On October 11, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant.