beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 250,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 4, 2017 to April 19, 2018.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that he/she lent KRW 250,000,000 to the defendant on July 3, 2017, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 250,000,000 to the plaintiff as well as damages for delay. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that some of the above KRW 250,000,000 claimed by the plaintiff is not the plaintiff's loan, but the plaintiff's wife and C's father's wife, the defendant's wife, and the defendant's wife.
2. The court shall recognize the existence and contents of an expression of intent in accordance with the contents of the statement, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that the content of the statement is recognizable as to the authenticity of the judgment document.
(2) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 250,000,00 to the Defendant around March 3, 2016. On July 3, 2017, 2017, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate recognizing the Plaintiff’s borrowing of KRW 250,000,00,000, which is a loan certificate issued by the Defendant and stated that “The Defendant borrowed KRW 250,000,000 from the Plaintiff.” The evidence submitted by the Defendant is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the above 250,000,000 won and damages for delay.
However, although the plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, in the case of a loan for consumption with no agreement on the time of repayment, the lender shall demand the return thereof with a reasonable period fixed (Article 603(2) of the Civil Act). The borrower shall be liable for delay from the time when the reasonable period has elapsed. There is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff and the defendant set the time of repayment of the above loan before August 4, 2017, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, and the defendant