1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,200,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from May 20, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
1. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant Company lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant Company on May 7, 2014, and KRW 5 million on June 13, 2014. Since the Defendant Company paid only KRW 12.8 million out of the above borrowed money on July 3, 2014, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid loan amount of KRW 32.2 million and delay damages.
B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff held 11% of the shares of the Defendant Company and engaged in money transactions at any time while taking part in the management. It is unreasonable to claim a loan claim against the Defendant Company on the sole basis of the details on the account book without preparing a written disposition such as a loan certificate. 2) Even if the Defendant Company borrowed money from the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant Company borrowed money from the Plaintiff, it was deemed that the Defendant Company defaulted due to the former management failure, including the Plaintiff, on June 30, 2014. On October 27, 2014, the Defendant Company did not take over the Defendant Company’s loan obligations against the Plaintiff while managing the Defendant Company as if it actually established a new company by taking over the management right of the Defendant Company, and thus, the said obligation was settled and extinguished in the process of acquiring
A. The judgment on the cause of the claim (the Plaintiff’s assertion and Defendant 1’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion and Defendant 1), and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, is recognized that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40 million to the Defendant Company on May 7, 2014, and KRW 5 million on June 13, 2014, and received KRW 12.8 million from the Defendant Company on July 3, 2014, and the fact that the said monetary transaction was stated as bearing short-term obligations against the Plaintiff due to the said monetary transaction in the Defendant Company’s account book.
In addition, even if the Plaintiff was a shareholder holding 11% of the shares of the Defendant Company and engaged in money transactions from time to time in the management, as long as the account books of the Defendant Company are entered in the short-term loans, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company.