beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 10, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From April 4, 2006 to May 14, 2008, the Plaintiff paid total of KRW 200 million to the Defendant as cash or check.
B. On September 29, 2006, the Defendant and C prepared a loan certificate stating that “I, by borrowing KRW 50 million in cash, pay interest on two occasions each month, and make a repayment by February 28, 2007” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”, and September 29, 2006 “the instant loan certificate”) to the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 50,000,000, and interest and delay damages on the borrowed amount of KRW 50,000,00 according to the loan certificate of this case, which is the disposal document.
In regard to this, the Defendant agreed on around 2006 that the Plaintiff and the Defendant opened a restaurant, and agreed to convert the instant loan to the Plaintiff’s investment in the said restaurant, and the said restaurant closed around around 2014 due to its business depression. At that time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s mutual settlement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was completed, and there is no loan borrowed any longer. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the instant loan was converted to the Plaintiff’s investment is rejected, on the grounds that there is no evidence that there was no further payment.
B. (i) As to the remainder of the instant case’s money, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the money, excluding the loan, out of the money remitted or paid to the Defendant, as the remainder of KRW 150 million (hereinafter “the remainder of the instant money”), is also lent to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the instant money to the Defendant. The Defendant, around 2006, was the money invested by the Plaintiff in the instant restaurant while opening the “D” restaurant. The said restaurant is due to its business depression.