beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 9.7 million to the Plaintiff; (b) 5% per annum from September 9, 2016 to January 5, 2017; and (c) from the next day.
Reasons
1. Determination as to C’s assertion of acquisition of loan claims
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C lent KRW 28 million to the Defendant on September 19, 2014, KRW 4 million on December 31, 2014, KRW 15 million on February 13, 2015, KRW 4 million on February 17, 2015, and KRW 28 million on February 17, 2015. Since the Plaintiff received the said loan claim from C, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the acquisition amount of KRW 28 million and delay damages.
B. Each evidence presented as shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion includes evidence Nos. 1, 9, 11, and 12 (including paper numbers), but the above evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
2. Determination as to the assertion on the acquisition of D’s loan claims
A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that D lent to the defendant KRW 5 million on December 17, 2014, KRW 100 million on January 19, 2015, KRW 200 million on March 26, 2015, and KRW 8 million on the acquisition of the above loan claim from D, and the plaintiff was liable to pay the above loan, so the defendant alleged that D was liable to pay the above loan, and the defendant received KRW 8 million from D, but it is proved that it was not a loan, but an investment amount that the defendant and D promised to operate the convenience store together.
B. As seen earlier, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the fact that D remitted KRW 8 million to the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff is without dispute between the parties. According to the evidence No. 8, the Defendant sent D a text message stating that “five million won of the above eight million won is to be paid in full for five months, for five months,” which is the day before the date when D was transferred to D, and the Defendant sent a text message stating that “one million won of the above eight million won of the above eight million won of the transfer from D on March 26, 2015” on the date when the Defendant received the above eight million won of the above eight million won of the transfer from D. Accordingly, the Defendant is deemed to be the premise that D was returned.