beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,652,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 15, 2014 to November 27, 2014.
Reasons
1. The Defendant asserted that, from around 1994 to February 2003, the Defendant loaned money of KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff, and filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against the Plaintiff, Incheon District Court 2012Gahap4493, but the Plaintiff’s defense was accepted that the Defendant paid the loan in excess of the principal and interest of the loan, and the said court rendered a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s claim in entirety on May 3, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time, there is no dispute between the parties.
(hereinafter referred to as the "existing Judgment") 2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the above.
A. The plaintiff did not borrow KRW 10 million from the defendant on or around October 194, 194, and even from September 5, 1994 to January 10, 1996, the previous judgment recognized that the plaintiff borrowed the above KRW 10 million from the defendant and partially repaid the principal and interest of KRW 10 million, inasmuch as the amount of KRW 200,000 to KRW 15,000,000,000 was not the interest for KRW 10,000,000,000,000 to KRW 15,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.
Therefore, the previous judgment is unfair, and the amount that the plaintiff has repaid to the defendant in excess of the plaintiff's specification of transactions is KRW 216,688,164, such as the "total column of debt burden" in the attached Table 1's specification of transactions of the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff 216,68,00 of the above amount with unjust enrichment and delay damages.
B. In the judgment of civil court, the facts which have been recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, even though they are not confined to the facts which have been recognized in the judgment of other civil cases, shall not be rejected without a reasonable reasoning, since they are valuable evidence, unless there are special circumstances.
(Supreme Court Decision 94Da52768 delivered on October 12, 1995). According to the above evidence, the court in the existing loan lawsuit is ①.