beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
In full view of the purport of Gap evidence and the whole pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiff lent to the defendant a total of KRW 40 million on October 1, 2006, KRW 36.5 million on November 15, 2006, and KRW 40 million on November 15, 2006. Of the above loans, the fact that the defendant repaid the plaintiff a total of KRW 20 million on four occasions from July 25, 2008 to November 17, 2008, and that the repayment of KRW 20 million out of the remainder of the loans was made by the plaintiff.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan 12 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.
On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that the above remainder of KRW 20 million was repaid in full by remitting to E, a president of the said entertainment drinking club, at the Plaintiff’s request, KRW 4 million to the accounting staff D of the said entertainment drinking club operated by the Plaintiff, and to E, a president of the said entertainment drinking club, at the Plaintiff’s request.
(i) According to the evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3-1, 2, and 5 through 7, which the Plaintiff was paid, the Defendant: (a) transferred the total amount of KRW 4 million to the account of D, which is an accounting employee of C, and KRW 4 million on September 4, 2007; and (b) from September 11, 2007 to November 22, 2007, the total amount of KRW 16 million from September 11, 2007 to the account of E, which is a general manager of the said entertainment drinking club; (c) the said account was established in accordance with the direction of E; and (d) the fact that the Plaintiff’s account was used in the transaction of the said entertainment drinking club and was terminated on June 19, 2008; and (d) the Plaintiff’s account related to the operation of E.
However, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff requested the repayment of the above loan to D and E account, and the fact that the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had the right to manage and dispose of the said account, and there is no other evidence to support this, the Defendant’s defense is acceptable.