beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 and KRW 20,000 among them, from August 21, 2006, and KRW 5,000,00 among them.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the whole purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff extended a promissory note from the defendant around August 2006 to the defendant that issued the issuer, the defendant with a face value of KRW 60,000,000,000 from August 20, 2006, and lent KRW 50,000,000,000 to the defendant without fixing the due date, and there is no counter-proof.
In addition to the above loans, the Plaintiff asserts that he additionally lent KRW 15 million to the Defendant on October 10, 2006. However, the Plaintiff’s statement in the evidence No. 2 merely recognizes that the Plaintiff transferred the account transfer of KRW 15 million to C on the same day on the same day, and it is insufficient to deem that there was a lending agreement with the Defendant on the said money solely with the fact that the above recognition was made, and there is no evidence to support this otherwise, the allegation in this part is without merit.
B. As to the above money, the Defendant’s assertion that it constitutes illegal consideration in violation of good morals and other social order, but the above assertion is without merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, the defendant applied for a compulsory auction of the building D located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, which was owned by the defendant at the time of February 2008, and agreed that E, the defendant's wife, shall pay the plaintiff money, and then the plaintiff withdraws the above request for auction.
3. 21. 21. E asserts that the instant loan obligations were extinguished since it deposited KRW 30,000 to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, according to each of the statements Nos. 1, 1 and 3-1, the plaintiff was forced to commence compulsory auction on the above building owned by the defendant on February 15, 2008 by Seoul Western District CourtF on February 15, 2008.
3. The withdrawal on the 18th of the same month and the cancellation of the entry registration of the start-up decision on the 20th of the same month, and the fact that the Defendant’s wife E transferred 30,000 won to the Plaintiff on the 21st of the same month may be recognized.