beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and KRW 15,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 85,00,000 from July 31, 2007.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 17, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000 to the Defendant.
B. On July 19, 2010, the Defendant prepared a letter of performance stating that KRW 15,000,000,000, out of the above loan amount of KRW 100,000,000, shall be repaid until July 30, 2010, and the remainder of KRW 85,000,000 shall be repaid until November 30, 2010, and issued it to the Plaintiff.
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,000,000 and the amount of KRW 15,000,000, whichever is the day following the due date for payment, to the remainder of KRW 85,00,000 from July 31, 2010, and to the remainder of KRW 85,000 from December 1, 2010, which is the day after the due date for payment, to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 19, 205, which is clear that the delivery date of each of the claims and the application for modification of the cause of claims is the delivery date of each of the claims and the damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of
B. The defendant's assertion (i) The defendant borrowed the above borrowed loan from C Association established by the actual defendant, and the defendant guaranteed the above borrowed loan, but this does not mean that the above union is responsible for the property of the principal of the association when it is operated normally, or that it is not responsible for the property of the principal of the association.
See Doll Dol, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.