beta
Text
1. As to KRW 50,00,000 and KRW 20,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,00 from August 18, 2014, and KRW 20,000,00.
Reasons
1. In addition to the overall purport of pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and 8 through 12, the defendant served for the plaintiff company from November 1, 2013 to April 15, 2017. The plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the due date of payment of KRW 1.2,00 million on July 18, 2014, the interest rate of KRW 4% on May 1, 2017, the due date of payment of KRW 20 million on November 3, 2014, the interest rate of KRW 4% on May 1, 2017, the due date of payment of KRW 1,4%, ③ the due date of payment of KRW 1,000 on December 15, 2015, the interest rate of KRW 1,000 on the loan from KRW 4% on June 1, 201, and each of the loans from the lender 1,2014 to 15.2.4.18
According to the facts found above, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 50 million (=20 million per annum from January 15, 2016 to June 13, 2017, whichever is earlier) and KRW 20 million per annum from July 18, 2014 to November 3, 2014, respectively, for the borrowed amount of KRW 20 million from August 3, 2014; and for the borrowed amount of KRW 20 million from November 3, 2014 to December 15, 2015 to the Plaintiff at the rate of KRW 4% per annum from the next day to June 13, 2017, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case; and for the delayed payment of KRW 10 million from the next day to the date of the repayment of each of the charges.
2. The defendant's assertion that each of the above amounts paid by the plaintiff was donated (or agreed to return only the balance after being used to prepare a residence) for the defendant's dwelling or paid as a performance bonus following the increase in company sales. Since each of the above loans between the plaintiff and the defendant is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.