beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 86,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 1, 2017 to January 8, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant lent KRW 93 million to the Defendant on May 18, 2015, and KRW 4 million on May 17, 2016.
B. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 3, and 2-1, the Defendant promises to borrow from the Plaintiff on July 24, 2016, “9.3 million won” to the Plaintiff on May 18, 2015 and to pay the Plaintiff up to December 31, 2016.
“Preparation and delivery of a loan certificate and a loan certificate stating that “4 million won shall be borrowed from the Plaintiff on May 17, 2016 and promised to repay by July 18, 2016.” The Defendant may recognize the fact that, on January 7, 2017, the Defendant: (a) drafted and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of performance of obligations stating that “The Plaintiff shall have borrowed KRW 93 million from the Plaintiff and KRW 4 million by the due date; (b) the Defendant failed to repay by the due date; and (c) the Defendant promised to repay the agreed principal and interest by January 31, 2017.”
However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the date on which the above loan certificate and the letter of performance of obligation are drawn up was actually lent after the date on which the Plaintiff actually lent the above money; (b) even if based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the person who requested the lending of money was C; (c) the Plaintiff and C had been engaged in monetary transactions even before the above loan date; (d) the Plaintiff failed to obtain a loan certificate, etc. from the Defendant who actually borrowed and demanded the Defendant who is the spouse to be responsible for the said document; and (e) the said certificate and the letter of performance were drawn up, it shall be construed that the said certificate and the letter of performance of obligation are to guarantee C
Since the above loan certificate and the letter of performance of obligation require the defendant to jointly pay the above amount on the premise that the plaintiff actually lent the above amount to C, it is true that the loan certificate and the letter of performance were the legal act that the defendant bears the obligation to pay the above amount.