beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,30,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 28, 2014 to July 21, 2015.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff refused to pay a bill of KRW 46 million at the face value of the plaintiff, i.e., the plaintiff, who received an endorsement and transfer from the Tactine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Tactine"), with the payment of KRW 46 million on April 13, 2010. The defendant, on the same day, guaranteed the plaintiff's obligation to pay the above contract amount to the plaintiff in installments, and on the same day, agreed to pay the plaintiff in installments the above KRW 46 million from May 30, 2010 to three million each month. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 36 million, excluding KRW 10 million from the person who received the payment from the plaintiff among the guaranteed debt amount of KRW 46 million, as well as damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that the above guaranteed debt is not the plaintiff but the debt against C.
However, as seen earlier, the Defendant guaranteed the Plaintiff the obligation to pay the agreed amount of KRW 46 million to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is not acceptable. (The above recognition is insufficient to be followed only with the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8).
B. The defendant asserts that he repaid the above guaranteed debt amount of KRW 17.3 million.
The Defendant’s payment of KRW 600,000 to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2012, KRW 1100,000 on November 30, 2012, KRW 1100,000 on December 13, 2012, KRW 1100,00 on January 31, 2013, KRW 1110,000 on February 28, 2013, KRW 1110,00 on April 2, 2013, and KRW 13,70,000 on May 31, 2013 is not a dispute between the parties, and the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is reasonable.
3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is the year prescribed by the Civil Act from November 28, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to July 21, 2015, the date of this decision, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute the existence and scope of the obligation to perform.