beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as annual 5% from October 21, 2006 to October 25, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Defendant written a letter of payment that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff on September 28, 2006, which was determined as to the cause of the claim, by October 20, 2016, may be recognized by the evidence No. 1 or there is no dispute between the parties.
Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 21, 2006 to October 25, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant's argument 1) The defendant's argument that the plaintiff is a false statement of payment 1) that was owned by the defendant, the plaintiff was engaged in funeral services on behalf of the tenant of the first floor in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, the 17 million won after deducting the rent and management expenses incurred from the deposit for the lease of 30 million won. In addition to the amount of 17 million won paid by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, the plaintiff added 13 million won to the defendant for the deposit of 30 million won a monthly rent of 1.5 million won. The plaintiff additionally paid the deposit of 13 million won to the defendant, and did not pay the rent and management expenses. Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to pay the D Bank loans, and the plaintiff was allowed to receive the loan payment even at the time of the successful bid for auction, and the plaintiff did not receive the loan certificate (the payment certificate No. 1) and did not receive the above documents for the preparatory date for pleading. However, the defendant did not know that he did not actually receive the dividend.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
B. Although it is not clear that the decision on immunity extends to the effect of decision on immunity, the defendant is dated June 7, 2013.