beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 289,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 13, 2015 to February 5, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire arguments as indicated in subparagraphs A through 4, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that: (a) the Plaintiff, under the pretext of advance payment, delivered to the Defendant a bill of exchange equivalent to KRW 50,000,000 in face value of July 27, 2010; (b) a bill of exchange equivalent to KRW 89,00,000 in face value of December 23, 2010; and (c) the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000 to the Defendant on October 4, 2011.
B. Therefore, the defendant's total sum of advance payment and loan 289,000,000 won [289,000 won x 2] (the Chapter 89,000,000 won x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1)] and the plaintiff's claim principal is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation from February 13, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case for which the plaintiff seeks to perform as to the plaintiff's obligation, since February 13, 2015, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's claim principal is 289,429,130 won. As such, only 289,00,000 won is cited, "the debtor is deemed reasonable to resist the existence or scope of the obligation to perform" (Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Dispute).
Until February 5, 2016, which is the date of this decision, the Civil Act is obligated to pay 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff appears to have sought additional payment of KRW 429,130 (=20,672,302 - 20,243,172) to the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,672,30 as advance payment, but received return of KRW 20,243,172 to the Defendant, and there is evidence that seems consistent therewith.
However, evidence No. 3 is an internal document prepared by the plaintiff himself/herself, and it cannot be deemed sufficient evidence to support the payment of advance payment. Otherwise, there is no other evidence to support the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
2. The defendant's assertion.