Seoul Eastern District Court 2013 Gohap10739 ( October 14, 2014)

The fact that the money was paid, but there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the money was lent by the member.

The fact that the money was paid is recognized, but there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the money was lent by the said personnel, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant repaid or was exempted from the payment. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are dismissed since all of them are without merit.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014Na2018658 Collection Money

Korea

KimA

September 19, 2014

October 22, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 225,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the following order to pay shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 187,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the service date of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the following additions to the judgment of the parties on the assertion that the parties emphasize in particular or unsatisfy, and therefore, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the UB lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant by paying KRW 50 million on May 6, 2009, and KRW 50 million on May 19, 2009 on behalf of the Defendant to KimCC, a seller of the instant real estate purchase price, as the Defendant’s purchase price, and that the UB lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant by paying KRW 40 million as the check on February 5, 2009.

First of all, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, No. 4-1, and No. 4-2, the fact that the UB paid to KimCC KRW 50 million on May 6, 2009, and KRW 50 million on May 19, 2009 is acknowledged. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the UB lent the above money to the Defendant on the sole basis of the aforementioned evidence and the descriptions of No. 3, 6, 7, and No. 3 and No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

Then, according to the plaintiff's argument No. 5, the plaintiff's argument that the BB issued a cashier's check with a face value of KRW 40 million to the defendant on February 5, 2009, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the above B was lent to the defendant in light of the evidence No. 6-1 and No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

shall not be effective.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

Although UB lending KRW 85 million to the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that on December 28, 2009, the Defendant offered the instant real estate to Korea DDR Co., Ltd., Ltd., and loaned KRW 40 million to the Defendant, prior to being served the notice of the Plaintiff’s attachment of claims and collection, and repaid the loan amount of KRW 35 million out of the said money, and repayment was made to BB on September 11, 2010 as recognized by the first instance court, and that the remainder was exempted from the UB.B.

However, the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 14, and 15 alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant paid the above KRW 47 million to the UB or was exempted from the UB as to the above KRW 38 million in excess of the above KRW 47 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant paid the above KRW 85 million to the UB. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, both the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal are dismissed.