beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 74,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 21, 2017 to August 11, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 27, 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant borrowed KRW 75,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and prepared a letter of payment with the content that the Defendant would repay KRW 35,000,000 from the said amount until the end of August 2007, and KRW 40,000,000 to the end of October 2007 (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).
B. In addition, on August 25, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,000,000 to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant’s wife.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant borrowed a total of KRW 94,00,000 from the plaintiff (i.e., the loan amount of KRW 75,000,000 on August 25, 2008, and the plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000 from the defendant on October 8, 2008. Thus, the above KRW 10,000,000 from the defendant on October 8, 2008 is a person who received reimbursement of KRW 10,000 from the defendant. Thus, the above KRW 10,00,000 from the payment note of this case which was due first due under subparagraph 3 of Article 477 of the Civil Act is first appropriated for the repayment of the loan obligation. Accordingly, it is clear that the loan obligation based on the letter of payment of this case remains as KRW 65,00,000.
(1) The court below held that the plaintiff's transfer of 19,00,000 won to the account under the name of the defendant's wife on August 25, 2008 to the defendant's wife to D is a profit-making of 200,000 won invested by the defendant to D who is the plaintiff's husband. Thus, according to the evidence Nos. 3, the defendant transferred 200,000 won to D who is the plaintiff's husband on November 14, 2005 under the name of the plaintiff's wife C, but there is no evidence to prove the calculation method or details of the profit, and the plaintiff's above 19,00,000 won was not the plaintiff's husband's husband, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit). Thus, the defendant's transfer of the remaining loan amount of 84,00,000 won to the plaintiff on August 25, 200, 205.