beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 9, 2016 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
In full view of the facts without dispute as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the whole purport of the pleadings in witness D’s testimony, the plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,000 to the defendant on April 30, 2007, and KRW 60,000,000 on May 10, 2007, respectively, and the defendant prepared and issued a certificate of borrowing that the plaintiff borrowed KRW 100,000,000 in total to the plaintiff on May 2007 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from April 9, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.
The loan certificate of this case written by the defendant as to the defendant's argument is merely stated in the form of a loan certificate of KRW 100,000,000, which is anticipated in relation to the investment in the reconstruction apartment apartment sales business (hereinafter "the business of this case") through D, which is the plaintiff's wife, and it does not actually lend the above KRW 100,000 to the defendant.
Even if the above amount is a loan, the Defendant repaid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff via D on April 2007 (i) and around May 2007, paid KRW 30,000,000 by the above method.
(2) B. The Defendant, as the representative director, managed D the account under the name of E Co., Ltd. (F Co., Ltd. before the change; hereinafter “instant company”) in which the Defendant had been operating the instant business, and deposited KRW 30,000,000 with the said account on September 10, 2008, and KRW 10,000,000 on May 29, 2009, and repaid to the same amount.
(3) A reimbursement claim). A reimbursement of KRW 50,000,000 was made by means of offsetting the amount of the child care center that the Defendant had operated and paid to the Defendant upon receipt by the Plaintiff.
(No.4. The defendant was the representative director of the company of this case.