beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,950,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from November 24, 2016 to February 6, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 13, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 1.2 million to the Defendant, KRW 4.5 million on March 3, 2015, KRW 4.5 million on June 8, 2015, KRW 1.2 million on June 30, 2015, and KRW 1.2 million on June 30, 2015.
B. Around August 1, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C, etc. for removal of ground objects and for delivery of land. Around August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff paid on behalf of the Plaintiff totaling KRW 6,750,000, such as stamp, delivery fees, and attorney fees.
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. If the above facts and Gap evidence No. 11 were combined, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 1.2 million to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 1.1.2 million to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance. 2) The defendant asserts that the above KRW 1.1.2 million is not a loan that the plaintiff paid for the plaintiff's purchase of land owned by the defendant for the removal of earth and sand.
According to the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant around October 16, 2013, it is recognized that they reached an agreement with the approval of land use (hereinafter "the first agreement of this case") with the following contents.
The indication of land subject to consultation with the approval for land use: The period of land use for entry and exit necessary for the transportation of soil and sand out of the six parcels outside the Seoul Special Metropolitan City: One year from the date of obtaining permission from the competent authority: The purpose of land use: The user of temporary roads for the transportation of soil and sand through access to the land: The plaintiff: The defendant, however, according to the evidence No. 10 and No. 2, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the land management and temporary use (hereinafter referred to as "the second consultation in this case") around January 2014 after the first consultation in this case; the fixed Eup market on November 10, 2014 to the plaintiff on November 9, 2016.