beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Loan credits;
A. The following facts are recognized in full view of the respective descriptions of Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings.
1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 2 million to the Defendant on September 28, 2018, KRW 4.4 million on January 4, 2019, and KRW 6.4 million on a total (hereinafter “instant loan”).
(2) On January 4, 2019, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that the instant loan amounting to KRW 6.4 million is repaid to the Plaintiff by January 15, 2019.
(B) The Defendant acknowledged the authenticity of the above loan certificate, but argued that he borrowed KRW 6.4 million from C, not the Plaintiff, and then prepared the above loan certificate to C. However, the corresponding statement in the No. 3 is difficult to believe in light of the contents of the above loan certificate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).
Judgment
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 6.4 million won and the above 6.4% per annum as stipulated in the main text of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings and the main text of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019) from March 15, 2019 to May 31, 2019, which is the day following the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, as the plaintiff seeks, 15% per annum as calculated by the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The gist of the assertion was that the instant loan was used as gambling money, and the Plaintiff knowingly lent the loan. As such, the said loan constitutes illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act, and thus, there is no obligation to return the loan.
B. The evidence No. 3, which seems consistent with the above argument, is difficult to believe as stated in the evidence No. 3, and the remaining evidence submitted by the defendant is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, this case.