beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,471,660 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 5, 2018 to January 29, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. Fact that there is no dispute over recognition, and according to Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted to the defendant KRW 15,000,000 on May 12, 2014, and KRW 15,000,000 on July 4, 2014, and KRW 30,000,000 on February 30, 2015, respectively.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion and the defendant claim the amount of KRW 60,000,000 around the loan and the return of KRW 60,000,000 in conjunctively or agreed amount of KRW 30,000 shall be claimed.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that 60,000,000 won was invested in the clothing business from the Plaintiff, but the business was discontinued due to the aggravation of management around May 2018, there was no money to settle the Plaintiff.
3. In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 60,00,00 to the Defendant solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, based on the fact that there was no dispute over the determination, the evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the statement No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
It is insufficient to recognize that payment was made without any legal cause, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, in full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to have invested KRW 60,000,00 in the process of running the Defendant and the clothing business, and the Defendant agreed to guarantee the principal of investment to the Plaintiff, but did not comply with the above agreement until now after the closure of the business.
Therefore, as seen below, the Defendant’s principal of the investment amount of KRW 60,00,000, which was agreed to be returned to the Plaintiff, shall be 47,471,660 remaining after deducting KRW 12,528,340, which had been returned to the Plaintiff, and as requested by the Plaintiff after the completion of the partnership relationship, it is reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation of performance by the Defendant from May 5, 2018, the day after the copy of the complaint was served to the Defendant as requested by the Plaintiff, and from January 29, 2019, the following day.