beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 22,400,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 20, 2013 to December 17, 2014; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the loan claim portion
A. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the cause of the claim is based on the following facts: (a) the amount of the loan that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant on the basis of the end of September 201, 201, does not conflict between the parties; or (b) can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the entries in the evidence No. 1 and the overall purport of the pleadings; and (c) the Plaintiff has received a total of KRW 7.6 million from October 20, 201 to January 16, 2013 from the Defendant.
Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 22,400,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that the defendant repaid all the above loan obligations to the plaintiff, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
2. Determination as to the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment
A. Around December 11, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the land C and above ground buildings from the Defendant as the repayment of the borrowed amount.
However, even after the Plaintiff acquired the above ownership, the monthly rent and the rental deposit for the above site and building are not returned to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the rent to be returned to the Plaintiff from December 11, 2009 to December 9, 2012 is KRW 3.3 million per month for 33 months from December 11, 2009 and KRW 1.5 million per month from October 201 to January 2013.
B. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence No. 2-1 and Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff can be recognized that the plaintiff was a title holder of the ownership transfer registration of the land and buildings on the land (the combination of the above land and the above-mentioned building; hereinafter the "real estate"), from December 11, 2009 to February 18, 2013. However, the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 as well as the entire purport of the arguments is as follows.