beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 24, 2008 to February 2, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant a total of KRW 7 million around January 15, 2007, KRW 4 million around March 2007, KRW 10 million around March 27, 2007, KRW 3 million around May 7, 2007, KRW 7 million around June 5, 2007, KRW 10 million around October 25, 2007, KRW 12 million around December 17, 2007, KRW 2 million around March 27, 2008, and KRW 3 million around August 27, 2008, and KRW 60,000 around August 5, 2008, the defendant should pay interest for delay to the plaintiff, respectively.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 7, the defendant issued a loan transaction contract with a seal imprint affixed to the plaintiff on March 20, 2008. The loan transaction contract as mentioned above is the principal amount of KRW 51 million and interest KRW 4 million up to that time, and the loan amount of KRW 5 million up to that time ( KRW 7 million around January 15, 2007, KRW 4 million around March 20, 2007, KRW 10 million around March 27, 2007, KRW 3 million around May 7, 2007, KRW 3 million around June 5, 2007, KRW 2007, KRW 3 million around 3 million and KRW 7 million around June 15, 2007, KRW 2008, KRW 3 million around 207.27 million.
B. The plaintiff asserts that he additionally lent KRW 3.5 million to the defendant around August 27, 2008, and KRW 6.5 million around September 23, 2008. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge this (no objective evidence exists to prove that he/she lent the above money claimed by the plaintiff, and the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 submitted by the plaintiff cannot be viewed as a complete document, and evidence Nos. 1 and 6 submitted by the plaintiff cannot be viewed as a complete document. The evidence Nos. 1 and 6 submitted by the plaintiff cannot be evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's lending because the defendant had a share and a lease deposit claim).
C. Therefore, the Defendant’s loaning KRW 55,00,000 to the Plaintiff as well as the Plaintiff’s loaning KRW 55,000,00 as the date of the instant judgment from September 24, 2008, as the Plaintiff seeks.