beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 145,00,000 and annual interest thereon from March 8, 2008 to October 6, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On November 19, 2007, 19. 5,000,000 on the day of basic facts; November 20, 2007; 30,000 on November 26, 200, 300 on November 26, 2007; 11,000,00 on December 10, 207; 10,000 on December 10, 207; 10,000 on December 10, 2008; 10,000,00 on June 10, 200 on December 12, 200, 200, 100 on December 10, 200, 200 on December 10, 200, 200 on July 10, 200, 2007;
A. From November 19, 2007 to March 7, 2008, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 145,000,000 on 14 occasions as indicated in the following table.
B. On November 5, 2010, the Defendant, at the Seoul Northern District Court (2010Dadan2524) (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Court”), “In spite of the absence of intent or ability to repay the money from others, the Defendant would give sufficient interest if he/she lends the money.” The Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff to sell the goods and thereby deceiving the Plaintiff to pay the money from the Plaintiff.
A. As described in paragraph (1), the recipient received KRW 145,00,000 as the borrowed money and acquired it by fraud.
"The defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment for criminal facts, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 24, 201.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of KRW 145,00,000,000 for the above loan and the interest or delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from March 8, 2008 to October 6, 2014, which is obviously a delivery date of the original copy of the payment order in this case, which is the date of the above loan, from March 8, 2008 to October 6, 2014, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the
B. As to this, the defendant asserted that he paid 80,000,000 won out of the above borrowed amount to the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendant's defense is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.