beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,736,438 and KRW 49,310,568 among the Plaintiff’s KRW 12% per annum from July 2, 2014 to March 27, 2018.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff agreed to grant a loan of KRW 100,000,000 from C on June 4, 2012 to the Defendant with a maturity of KRW 12% per annum (12% per annum) on June 4, 2015.
(2) On June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff paid 3,000,000 won for installment savings in the name of the Plaintiff, which the Defendant agreed to pay on behalf of the Plaintiff, and 7,00,000,000 won for his own language.
The Defendants paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,00,00 on July 5, 2012, as interest, KRW 1,160,00 on August 6, 2012, KRW 1,100 on September 5, 2012, KRW 1,000 on October 4, 2012, KRW 1,000,00 on October 4, 2012, KRW 1,000 on May 5, 2012, and KRW 1,000 on December 5, 200 on December 5, 200, KRW 1,000 on December 1, 200, KRW 1,095,616 on December 6, 2012, KRW 300,00 on May 7, 200, KRW 3003,00 on May 6, 205, 2005.
After the auction procedure of real estate auction case was commenced as Changwon District Court Do, Changwon District Court Do, upon the application of C, the Plaintiff was reimbursed KRW 44,00,000,000 on January 22, 2014 with respect to the loan of this case by the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 4 and Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. According to the facts of recognition under Paragraph (1) of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to refund the loan amount of KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff and pay interest pursuant to the agreement.
However, on June 5, 2012, the day following the preparation of the loan certificate of this case, the Plaintiff deducted installment savings of KRW 3,000,000 from KRW 100,000 and KRW 7,00,000 from KRW 10,000 and delivered only the remainder to the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the above KRW 10,00,000 was immediately appropriated for the repayment of principal.
In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the above 7,000,000 won was appropriated for the repayment of other loans to his own defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above assertion is not accepted.