beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 106,842,001 as well as 5% per annum from October 28, 2016 to April 4, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination of the lease amount;
A. From April 8, 2005 to September 4, 2007, the fact that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 365 million to the Defendant through account transfer or check delivery on 23 occasions, such as the statement in the attached Table 1 “date” and “loan” column, without dispute between the parties, that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 365 million to the Defendant by means of account transfer or check delivery.
(hereinafter “instant loan 1”). (b)
The loan certificate issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff: (a) the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was promised by the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff from March 17, 2006 to September 17, 2006; and (b) the amount of KRW 2,00,000,000 per month = 30,000,000 won per month = 1) the amount of KRW 2,000,000 per month ± (the first payment in part) Party A was written according to the loan certificate No. 2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 17, 2006 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
The facts are acknowledged. According to this, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant on March 17, 2006 as the due date for payment on September 17, 2006 (hereinafter “instant loan 2”).
(2) The Defendant asserted that the loan certificate of this case was prepared to adjust the loan amount of KRW 100 million until March 17, 2006, and that additional KRW 100 million was not borrowed on the date of the above preparation. However, in the facts acknowledged earlier, the following circumstances are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 9, and 10, and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the document, barring any special circumstances, i.e., the disposal document must be acknowledged. The loan certificate of this case only states that the Defendant would pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no indication that the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to adjust the loan amount occurred on March 17, 2006.