beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) From August 7, 2015 to December 31, 2015, KRW 180,000 and KRW 150,000 among them.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. Around January 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant on the same business that the Plaintiff bears the purchase price of ice cream machinery and raw materials, and the Defendant divides the profits from the Defendant’s business into 5:5 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
B. The Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff from January 7, 2014 to August 6, 2015 at the time of the conclusion of the instant partnership agreement. The Defendant, on August 6, 2015, instructed the Plaintiff to repay 14% per annum and the total amount of interest to December 31, 2015, stipulated that “The Defendant shall be liable for late payment 19% and all civil and criminal charges in the event of the loan,” and issued it to the Plaintiff by a notary public upon obtaining the authentication from the law firm.
C. After that, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3,460,750 from the Plaintiff on August 7, 2015, KRW 840,000 on the 13th day of the same month, KRW 520,00 on the 14th day of the same month, KRW 26.60,00 on the 26th day of the same month, KRW 270,750 on the 27th day of the same month, and KRW 3,460,750 on the 16th day of the same year, and paid KRW 160,00 on the 160,000 on the 16th day of the same year to the Plaintiff.
In addition, the Defendant agreed to bear the income tax to be imposed on the Plaintiff, who is the business owner of the instant partnership agreement, and the Defendant did not pay the said income tax to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff paid the income tax of KRW 1,980,000 as of the business year 2015.
E. Meanwhile, on May 28, 2014, the Defendant concluded a new card company and an operating lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the Plaintiff to bear the lease fee, insurance premium, etc. on the face of a week by leasing a vehicle necessary for the Defendant’s business activities. Accordingly, the Plaintiff concluded a new card company under its name and concluded a management lease contract with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is below C Titan.