beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 4.3 million and its KRW 2.3 million, August 26, 2016 shall be 5% per annum and the next day.
Reasons
1. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim
A. (1) The facts following the fact that the determination of the cause of the loan claim (A) is recognized are either a dispute between the parties, or a dispute between the parties or a set of evidence Nos. 1-3 and 10 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.
1) Plaintiff A appears to have changed the name to “E” (e.g., F) on the Internet lock.
hereinafter referred to as “instant Internet car page”
A) In the course of his/her membership, he/she became aware of the fact that he/she was a member of the Defendant, and thereafter returned to each other. (2) The Plaintiff transferred the sum of KRW 2,590,000 to the Defendant, including KRW 2,30,000,000 on January 23, 2014, KRW 100,000 on March 27, 2014, KRW 40,000 on May 4, 2014, and KRW 150,000 on May 9, 2014, and received KRW 2,000 from the Defendant on August 14, 2014.
3) On April 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on May 1, 2015, written statement that the Plaintiff would repay KRW 2.3 million to Plaintiff A by May 1, 2015 (hereinafter “instant written statement”).
(B) According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 2.3 million to the Plaintiff according to the letter of this case, barring any special circumstance.
2) The Plaintiff asserts that, among the total sum of KRW 2.5 million remitted to the Defendant, KRW 2,390,000,000,000 remitted from the Defendant, KRW 2.3 million was loaned to the Defendant. However, in light of the fact that only KRW 2.3 million was written in each of the instant notes and that KRW 90,000 was not included in KRW 90,000,000, the facts recognized above are insufficient to confirm that the Plaintiff A additionally lent KRW 90,00 to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept. (The Defendant’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion is promising to marry with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant lived between January 2, 2014 and October 2014, and all of the living expenses incurred by living together was borne by the Plaintiff.