beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,074,281 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 12% per annum from June 8, 2009 to June 7, 2017.
Reasons
In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap's evidence No. 1 as to the cause of claim, the defendant: (a) on May 7, 2009, the defendant: (b) obtained a certificate of borrowing from the plaintiff to the effect that "one million won was borrowed from the plaintiff on the condition of 12% per annum; (c) if interest is overdue, the plaintiff shall lose the benefit of time immediately; and (d) the plaintiff received dividends of KRW 50,925,719 from the auction and appropriated the principal for the principal; (b) the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan to the plaintiff 49,074,281 won (=10,000,000 - 50,925,719 won - 50,925,719 won); and (c) after the date of borrowing, it is clear that it was the date on which the original payment order of this case was served to the defendant from June 8, 2009 to June 7, 2017.
Judgment on Defendant’s argument
A. The Defendant borrowed KRW 100,000,000 from the Plaintiff, not the Defendant, but the Defendant’s father C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1-1 and 2, the defendant prepared the above loan certificate on May 7, 2009 and copied the defendant's resident registration certificate to the plaintiff on May 7, 2009, and attached with a copy of the defendant's resident registration certificate. It is recognized that the defendant set up on May 6, 2009 the right to collateral security with the plaintiff as the plaintiff, which is the beneficiary of the right to collateral security, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 100,000,000 and the right to collateral security with the beneficiary of the right to collateral security, at the time of preparation of the above loan certificate. It is reasonable to view that the defendant borrowed KRW 100,00,000 from the plaintiff.
B. The defendant asserts that C, the actual borrower of KRW 100,000,000, paid all the borrowed money from the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.