beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,770,00 and the following day shall be 5% per annum from June 9, 2015 to July 19, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 157,950,000 to the Defendant several times from June 4, 2012 to November 19, 2013 that the Plaintiff gave judgment on the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim constituted no dispute between the parties.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant's amount of KRW 54,570,00,00 (=loan 157,950,000 - Amount of KRW 103,380,000 recognized by the plaintiff (the defendant's transfer from his or her husband's account to the plaintiff's account) is the amount of KRW 111,060,000, which is not recognized as the repayment, as follows:
[2] The person shall pay the amount of damages for delay and any damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, in addition to the above recognized amount of repayment, the sum of KRW 7,680,000 in nine times from November 30, 2012 to October 1, 2013, the Defendant transferred the said amount to the Plaintiff’s account and repaid the said amount of loan.
The fact that the Defendant transferred total of KRW 13,640,000 to the Plaintiff’s account nine times from November 30, 2012 to October 1, 2013 is no dispute between the parties.
(B) The Plaintiff recognized the remainder of KRW 7,680,00 as the repayment amount of the above loan obligation as seen earlier. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 12-1 through No. 6 of the evidence No. 12, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,680,000 as the insurance premium purchased by the Defendant around the account transfer date, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid the same amount in cash to the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
In light of the above, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant paid 7,680,000 won to the plaintiff in addition to the above-mentioned amount of payment by account transfer, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. The defendant's above loan obligation.