beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 150,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from April 25, 2017 to April 19, 2018.
Reasons
1. On September 15, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 200 million to the Defendant’s Cbank account; KRW 20 million on September 8, 2011; KRW 26,000,000 on August 26, 2011; KRW 10,000 on November 21, 201; KRW 250,000 on March 9, 2015; and KRW 500,000 on April 23, 2015 to the Defendant’s F Bank account; or KRW 257,50,000 on April 23, 2015, may be recognized by adding the purport of the entire pleadings as to evidence A1.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she lent KRW 200 million to “the Defendant” rather than H on September 15, 2010, and the evidence Nos. 5 is contrary to the foregoing, in view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the entire purport of the pleadings to each entry in the evidence Nos. 2 through 7, which was remitted on September 15, 2010.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 150 million, excluding KRW 50 million, which the Plaintiff was paid out of the above KRW 200 million, and damages for delay.
① The Plaintiff merely remitted KRW 200 million to the Defendant’s account, and the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff but the Defendant, who transferred the money to the financial institution account under the name of H or I company.
② On December 1, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on the land J on which the Defendant had the maximum debt amount of KRW 300 million, the debtor I company, and the mortgagee. If the Plaintiff was the creditor of H or I company, then the Defendant would not have any reason for deeming the Defendant as the mortgagee.
③ He was found guilty on the ground that he/she by deceiving the Defendant without any intent or ability to repay, thereby deceiving the said KRW 200 million (the judgment of the Suwon District Court Decision 2016Da765, 3488, Jan. 13, 2017). On the other hand, he/she examined the Plaintiff as a victim in the above criminal trial, while the examination of the witness was not conducted against the Plaintiff.
(b).