beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) on November 28, 2005, the Plaintiff lent KRW 57,000,000 to the Defendant for a fixed period of two months and two point five percent per month interest (hereinafter “instant primary loan”). On February 13, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant secondary loan”).
The Defendant repaid 29,300,000 won to the Plaintiff, which is larger than the repayment interest, shall be appropriated for the damages for delay from January 29, 2006 to June 29, 2015 with respect to the first loan of this case, and thus, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from June 30, 2015 to the day of full payment with respect to the total amount of KRW 188,725,000 with respect to the loan of this case and the principal amount of KRW 57,00,000 with respect to the loan of this case.
In addition, with respect to the second loan of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 20,000,000 and 5% interest per annum from February 13, 2006 to the date of full payment.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the first loan of this case was lent to C Co., Ltd., and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to repay it.
The second loan of this case was borrowed by the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 29,300,000 in total on six occasions from May 13, 2010 to June 29, 2015, and repaid the said loan in full.
B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 57,00,000 to the D Association account in November 28, 2005, and the fact that the Defendant entered the note "Won 57,000,000,000 in the D Association passbook in the name of C Co., Ltd.", and the fact that the Defendant entered the note "28,00,000,000 in the D Association passbook in the name of C Co., Ltd., and 3,00,000,000 in the second month." There is no dispute between the parties.
However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above KRW 57,00,000 to the Defendant solely on the basis of each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and it is recognized differently.