beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 52,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from March 28, 2013 to June 27, 2014.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 6, the plaintiff received each loan of KRW 2,3980,000 from Hyundai Capital Capital and Samsung Card, and transferred KRW 52 million among them to the account in the name of the defendant on the same day.
2. As to the issues of this case, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff was a loan, while the Defendant asserts that it was a part of the share transfer price.
As to whether the above KRW 52 million is a loan, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. However, as seen earlier, unless the plaintiff has already proved that he remitted the amount of KRW 52 million to the account under the name of the defendant, it is reasonable to view that the above KRW 52 million is a loan as the plaintiff's assertion unless the defendant proves that there is a separate legal ground for receiving KRW 52 million, not borrowing KRW 52 million from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's argument about the transfer of shares is examined.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of transfer price of shares
A. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion was established on October 27, 2005, and only 20,000 shares out of the shares were 40% under the name of the defendant. However, upon the plaintiff's agreement on investment of KRW 600 million in the non-party company, C entered into a transfer contract on shares of the plaintiff and the non-party company 6300 shares over three times from November 2005 to August 2006 under the name of the defendant. The above KRW 52 million was paid out of the share transfer price, but it was not borrowed by the defendant.
B. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3, A, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 30, 31, and 1 through 5 as a whole in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 1 through 13 alone is the Defendant on June 14, 2006.