beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 93,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from September 30, 2014 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have become aware of the fact that they were working together in the “PPS” company.
B. The Plaintiff retired from the Pakistan around November 2013, and the Defendant previously retired from the Pakistan and operated the restaurant with the trade name “D” in Gangnam-gu Seoul from June 2012 to June 3, 2012.
C. From November 25, 2013 to January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 83,000,000 to the account in the name of the Defendant. On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff wired KRW 10,000 to the account in the name of E at the Defendant’s request.
Around January 2014, the Defendant opened G in Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and the Plaintiff transferred 93,000,000 won to the account in the name of the Defendant or the account in the name of E as set forth in the above sub-paragraph (c) was used as the opening of the business.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that (i) the cause of the claim in this case is the cause of the claim in this case, and the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 93,000,000 as G’s opening of business at the defendant’s request, and thus the defendant is obligated to repay the above loan to the plaintiff.
D. The Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, but made an investment of KRW 93,00,00 to operate G with the Defendant as the partnership business. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff KRW 93,00,000 to the Plaintiff.
B. As to whether the above KRW 93,00,00 constitutes a loan or an investment amount arising from a loan business, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 10, and evidence No. 8-1 through No. 3, i.e., (i) the plaintiff and the defendant prepared an agreement for a loan for consumption on or before January 8, 2014, and tried to notarized, and thus, failed to reach an agreement for a loan for consumption and payment of interest, and (ii) the plaintiff and the defendant.