beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. In light of the fact that no dispute over the cause of the claim exists, the purport of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 1-3 and the whole purport of arguments and arguments, the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant on December 2, 2014 (hereinafter “instant loan”), the defendant, on February 18, 2015, paid KRW 10,000 to the plaintiff, and KRW 1,000,000 on September 3, 2015, and KRW 50,000 on October 1, 2015, respectively.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 8,500,000 (=20,000,000 - 11,500,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 1, 2016 to the date of delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.
2. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion and its judgment are leased to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "C"), and the defendant merely transferred the money to the defendant's account for the convenience of accounting and then remitted it to C's account, and there is no obligation to borrow money against the plaintiff.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff wired the instant loan to the Defendant’s name account, namely, the fact that the Defendant directly repaid part of the instant loan, the Defendant is the representative of C, and the Defendant, for the convenience of accounting, transferred the money to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant to C after receiving the money from the Plaintiff, D, and E. However, it is difficult to view that there is a special difference in accounting between the Company’s borrowing of operating funds from the representative and the borrowing from the other person, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff loaned the money to the Defendant.