beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 110,00,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 7, 2016 to September 20, 2017.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff loaned 350 million won in total by issuing cashier's checks with a face value of KRW 150 million on Jan. 9, 2007, and issuing checks with a face value of KRW 200 million on Jan. 10, 2007 to the defendant around Jan. 10, 2007. The plaintiff was paid 240 million from the defendant around Feb. 2007, there is no dispute between the parties.
B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant, as well as KRW 350 million recognized earlier at the time of the above lending, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
C. Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 110 million (i.e., KRW 350 million - KRW 240 million) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 7, 2016 to September 20, 2017, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the day when the Defendant served as a copy of the complaint of this case, until September 20, 2017, which is reasonable for dispute as to the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. First, the defendant's defense that the defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from the plaintiff around October 2006, but the repayment of KRW 240 million, as seen earlier, was recognized, and the above loan was paid more than KRW 60 million after about 20 days from the above loan date. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
Therefore, the defendant's defense of repayment cannot be accepted.
B. Next, the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff around October 2006. Since the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on November 28, 2016 after the lapse of ten years from the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s claim for the loan expired by prescription.
The defendant, as recognized earlier, on October 2006.