beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from October 30, 2013 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to the defendant on May 2, 2005, and the defendant borrowed KRW 55 million from the plaintiff on the same day to the plaintiff at 9% per annum and repaid until December 31, 2008.
It may be recognized that “the loan certificate in this case” (hereinafter referred to as “the loan certificate in this case”) has been drawn up and issued.
According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of 55 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 30, 2013 to the date of full payment as requested by the plaintiff, as requested by the plaintiff, from the day following the day of service of the complaint to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 55 million to the Defendant’s husband after receiving a proposal as to whether the Plaintiff would make an investment in the said land because the land and E land will be incorporated into an area expected to be commercialized from the Defendant’s husband C, and it does not lend the above money to the Defendant.
Furthermore, it is reasonable to view the said money as an investment amount, in light of the fact that the Defendant received the investment from other persons than the Plaintiff and prepared and implemented a loan certificate in the same form as the instant loan certificate, and that the instant loan certificate states that “I would transfer the ownership of D land 167 square meters at the port of Germany if only it is impossible to repay it to the Plaintiff.”
In addition, as a part of the land was accepted, 11,69,327 won corresponding to the Plaintiff’s investment share ratio was paid out of the compensation that was received from the Young-si, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto. Therefore, the Plaintiff is deemed to have recognized that the money borrowed in this case was invested.
(b) evidence No. 1 to 3, evidence No. 2, of No. 1 to 3.