beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 14, 2018 to August 9, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the cause of claim and the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff lent KRW 60 million to the defendant (hereinafter "the loan of this case"), and the defendant prepared and issued a certificate of borrowing that "the loan of this case is to be repaid on May 25, 2009" to the plaintiff on May 5, 2009.
According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 18 million after deducting the amount of KRW 8 million from cash around July 2016 (i.e., KRW 10 million on or around November 2016) of KRW 42 million and delay damages therefrom, which are paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 8 million on or around July 2016).
2. Determination as to the defense of performance
A. In addition to the amount the Defendant alleged to be the Plaintiff, the Defendant remitted KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on October 14, 2016, and paid KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on September 29, 2009 with loans of KRW 30 million from the CFFD in the name of Yong-Namon. ③ around December 2010, the Defendant loaned KRW 10 million from the E to the Plaintiff, and paid the Plaintiff the full amount of the instant loans by paying KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff’s electricity, KRW 2 million, and KRW 2 million interest on the Plaintiff’s loans. ⑤ Furthermore, unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion on December 2016, the Defendant settled that the entire amount of the instant loans were repaid by providing construction materials equivalent to KRW 11,949,300, not KRW 11,949,000, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff.
B. Determination ① According to the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 3, the Defendant’s repayment of part of the instant loan by remitting KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on October 14, 2016 can be acknowledged.
② According to the evidence evidence No. 1, D’s Ccredit Union account was deemed to have been withdrawn from September 29, 2009 with a check on September 29, 2009, but only such fact alone is deemed to have immediately repaid the instant loan by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.