beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport:
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 15, 2010, the Defendant stated to the Plaintiff that “If the Plaintiff borrowed money in order to purchase Aberland Seoul D Officetel, if the Plaintiff borrowed 42 million won, it would receive the above officetel as collateral and repay the money within two weeks.”
B. On January 15, 2010, the Plaintiff made F transfer of KRW 10,00,000,000 to G, KRW 10,000,000,000 to H, KRW 4 million, KRW 3 million, and KRW 4 million to H on January 18, 2010, and KRW 50,000,000 in total, KRW 42,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. According to the basic facts, the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 42 million to the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 42 million won a total amount of loans and 5% a year prescribed by the Civil Act from September 15, 2011 (the date the plaintiff seeks as the date when the contract was performed) to November 22, 2018 (the delivery date of the complaint in this case), 15% a year prescribed by the provisions of the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019); and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% a year prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment (the delivery date of the complaint in this case).
B. As to this, the Defendant is not the party who borrowed the instant loan, but the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, claiming that the Defendant’s mother is the debtor of the instant loan, and then again filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant, which is not allowed against the principle of prohibition of contradictory behavior.
However, according to the above evidence, the defendant is found.