beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 88,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 31, 2016 to November 8, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, around March 2007, came to know of the lectures at a driving school of a licensed real estate agent and became aware of them, and have taught until around March 2010.
B. On September 3, 2007, the Plaintiff sold a 631m2 and D 731m2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
C. On September 11, 2007, the Defendant purchased from Nonparty G for KRW 88,50,00 the H apartment 606 Dong 606 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”). On October 8, 2007, the Defendant completed the registration of the instant apartment in the name of the Defendant.
On October 5, 2007, the Plaintiff issued cashier's checks of KRW 80 million (one sheet of KRW 50 million, two sheet of KRW 10 million, one sheet of KRW 10 million, one sheet of KRW 100 million) from the macro-si Livestock Industry Cooperatives, and the cashier's checks of KRW 100 million (one million of KRW 10 million) around December 11, 2007, respectively.
E. Of the above cashier’s checks issued by the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s endorsement was made on the back of the check of KRW 50 million, KRW 10 million, KRW 10 million, KRW 4 million, and KRW 50 million, KRW 50 million among them, and KRW 4 million was used by the Defendant for paying the lessee the lease deposit.
【Fact-finding without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness I's testimony, the 3rd party branch of this court, and the result of each fact-finding inquiry, the whole purport of the arguments, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion was requested by the defendant to lend the purchase fund of the apartment of this case, and lent KRW 100 million out of KRW 289.4 billion to the defendant's account. The plaintiff's remaining sale price was assigned to the defendant, but the defendant was assigned to the defendant.