beta
Text
1. On the merits of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant has lost in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid:
Reasons
1. On May 14, 2010, the judgment on the cause of the claim was examined, and the deceased C (the deceased’s death on February 5, 2016; hereinafter “the deceased”) lent KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”) on May 14, 2010, and the deceased’s heir (C, F, Plaintiff, G, and H) reached an agreement on the division of inherited property with the content that the Plaintiff inherited the instant loan claims independently by himself/herself may be recognized by the parties’ respective entries in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 100,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff who is the inheritor of the deceased, unless there are special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The Defendant’s defense of repayment 1) defenses that the Deceased repaid the amount of KRW 31,00,000 to August 17, 2014, which was eight times from August 201 to August 2014. However, the entries in the evidence No. 1 alone are insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense that the Defendant repaid KRW 15,00,000 to E on February 17, 2016. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant repaid KRW 15,00,000 to E on February 17, 2016. Accordingly, according to the entries in evidence No. 1, B, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant may acknowledge the fact that the Defendant repaid the amount of KRW 15,00,000 (hereinafter “instant repayment”).
Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense is justified.
In regard to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant repayment was appropriated for the interest of the instant loan on the premise that an annual interest rate of 5% was agreed on with respect to the instant loan, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an interest agreement setting the interest rate of 5% per annum on the instant loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, it shall be deemed that the instant repayment was appropriated for the principal, not the interest of the instant loan.