beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 56,479,750 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from October 7, 2015 to December 17, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the acquisition price of stocks and the claim for taxes and public charges paid by subrogation among the principal lawsuit
A. (1) On August 3, 2013, the Defendant did not pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff out of the acquisition price of 56,000 shares of Green Love Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and as to the transfer of 15,00 shares of 31,479,750 shares to the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co. (hereinafter “C”), the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 146,479,750 (i.e., KRW 15,000) (i., KRW 31,479,750) and the Plaintiff paid the shares on behalf of the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, there was no dispute between the parties, and barring any other special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said sum of KRW 146,479,750 (=15,000 million).
나. 피고의 항변에 관한 판단 ⑴ 대여금채권의 상계항변 ㈎ 피고는 원고에게 2009. 1. 9.부터 2010. 6. 7.까지 합계 1억 원을 빌려주었으므로 위 대여금채권으로 원고의 주식양도대금채권과 대등액에서 상계한다고 항변한다.
Of the total amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s bank account on March 12, 2010, and ② from the end of 2009 to the middle of 2010, 90,000,000,000 won, did not dispute the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed from the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s loan assertion is justified within the extent of KRW 90,00,00
On the other hand, the statement No. 1-4 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant lent money to the plaintiff beyond the above recognition scope, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's assertion of the loan exceeding KRW 90 million is not accepted.
The Defendant’s loan claim and the Plaintiff’s share transfer price claim were set-off around September 2013, which is the due date of the above payment obligation (no dispute between the parties), and the Defendant’s intent of set-off was stated.