beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 12,00,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this, from December 28, 2016 to June 21, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From March 2014 to September 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to borrow KRW 5,000,000 from the Defendant on April 14, 2014 to repay the said money in five equal annual installments from May 25, 2014 to September 2014.
B. On June 22, 2015, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content proving that the sum of KRW 5,000,000 borrowed by the Plaintiff and KRW 7,120,135, which occurred due to the cancellation or termination of the insurance contract solicited by the Plaintiff, would be KRW 12,120,135.
C. Thereafter, on October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant in 12 installments only KRW 8,496,000 as of October 1, 2015, or KRW 7,00,000 among the fees that the Defendant shall recover from the Plaintiff, or KRW 12,00 from January 27, 2016 to December 27, 2016.
‘B' has made and given a written pledge (No. 2).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 2 (a written oath, the plaintiff's assertion that this document was invalid because it was written by the defendant as threatening, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim claim
A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 12,00,000,000 won including the agreed amount of KRW 7,000,000 related to the recovery of insurance solicitation fees and the loan amount of KRW 5,00,000 and its delay damages to the Defendant.
B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, if the Defendant paid the insurance solicitation fee to the Plaintiff with the design code, the Plaintiff was able to divide the insurance solicitation fee to the actual recruiter B, etc., and that the amount of KRW 5,000,000, which was subsidized in the process of moving the company, was divided into two parts with the actual recruiters. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s burden of all responsibility is unreasonable.
In addition, even if the plaintiff's above assertion is true, since the plaintiff prepared a written agreement (No. 3) with the defendant and borrowed KRW 5,000,000, the loan shall be repaid.