beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,752,190 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 9, 2016 to March 22, 2017, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 2, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 24 million to the Defendant. Around March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 20 million from the Defendant.
B. On March 16, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 6 million to the Defendant.
C. On March 29, 2014, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 36 million from the Plaintiff as of May 30, 2014.”
[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. As to the cause of the claim, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the statement in Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 5, namely, the withdrawal of a total of KRW 16 million from the plaintiff's account and the accounts in C (the plaintiff's wife) between March 28, 2014 and March 29, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff entered into a quasi-loan agreement with the defendant on March 29, 2014 on a quasi-loan loan with the content of KRW 36 million as the object of the loan for consumption, and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 36 million and damages for delay.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant would lend 36 million won to the defendant separate from the above 1-A, (b) each loan set forth in the above 1-B, is without merit).
1) As to the Defendant’s assertion regarding illegal consideration, the Defendant’s assertion constitutes illegal consideration in violation of good customs and other social order, and thus, the Defendant is not obliged to pay it to the Plaintiff.
B) However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the above loan was received as gambling money only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) In full view of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the letter of repayment and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the letter of repayment, the Defendant amounted to the Plaintiff KRW 2 million on September 7, 2014, and KRW 1 million on February 17, 2015.