beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 59,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 28, 2009 to August 23, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff, who was the mother of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s father C and the Defendant agreed to divorce among the divorce litigation.
B. The Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant KRW 20 million on August 21, 2007, KRW 20 million on August 23, 2007, KRW 20 million on August 23, 2007, and KRW 19 million on August 27, 2007.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 4 and 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff 1) extended three times from August 21, 2007 to August 27, 2007, the plaintiff lent 59 million won to the defendant as of August 27, 2009 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"). Since the defendant did not pay the loan of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay the above loan of 59 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff. 2) Since the person who borrowed the loan of this case from the defendant is not the defendant but C, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.
B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged prior to the judgment and the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, comprehensively based on the overall purport of pleadings, were sent to the defendant's account, namely, the defendant sent text messages to the defendant's account, and the defendant sent a text message to the defendant as to the lending relationship including the loan in this case with Eul. In the process, the defendant sent a text message to Eul on the premise that the defendant borrowed the above money from the plaintiff, "to prepare documents, and to discuss the date, time, place, etc. of preparation of the documents, and to discuss the documents," and the defendant also stated that he borrowed KRW 59 million from the plaintiff for business purposes in the reply as of September 21, 2017. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem the lender of the loan in this case as the defendant, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.
Therefore, the defendant, from August 28, 2009 to August 23, 2017, the delivery date of the application for payment order from August 28, 2009 to the plaintiff.