beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from September 1, 2016 to June 1, 2017, and the next day.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as to the cause of the claim (including the fact that there is no dispute between the parties concerned), the defendant is the head of the D&D association located in Pakistan, and the plaintiff is the actual operator of "E" of a business chain awarded a subcontract for a reinforced concrete construction project from E&D company which was awarded a contract for the said reconstruction project by the said reconstruction project association. The plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total amount of KRW 47,000,000,000 on December 17, 2013, and the plaintiff was paid to the defendant within one month on March 18, 2014, with the payment period of KRW 30,000,000 on March 7, 2014, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 47,00,000 from the Plaintiff is consistent with the fact that the Defendant received the said KRW 47,000 from the Plaintiff; however, on December 17, 2013, the Defendant received the said KRW 5,00,000 from the Plaintiff under the name of the general affairs of the reconstruction and rearrangement project partnership and the Defendant, and remitted KRW 7,000,000 among them to the general affairs of the partnership; on March 31, 2014, KRW 50,000 among them, was remitted to the Plaintiff, and KRW 3,00,000,000 was paid to the general affairs of the partnership. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff is KRW 38,50,000 ( KRW 30,000,0000, KRW 5,0000, KRW 350,000).
However, as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff remitted the above KRW 47,00,000 to the Defendant and the Defendant remitted part of them to the Defendant as a full-time partnership’s pay, etc., it is merely a consumption method of the loan, and thus, the Defendant cannot deny the Defendant’s obligation based on
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. The Defendant asserts that the period of repayment of the instant loan was determined at the time of occupancy after completion, and that the remaining construction is not completed and the maturity of the said loan has not yet arrived.
However, the defendant is the police.