beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,521,066 for the Plaintiff and 12% per annum from September 3, 2014 to July 6, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff’s husband, C, and D, a partner of C, jointly invested and established the Defendant Company (Co., Ltd. before the change of trade name) on January 20, 2012, F divided the shares in the Defendant Company and decided to operate the Defendant Company. On February 20, 2012, F was appointed as the representative director of the Defendant Company.
At the time of 2012, C owned 49% in the name of G, D 31% in the name of H, and F 20% in each of the shares of the Defendant Company.
B. The Defendant Company borrowed KRW 100,000 from I through D to pay 100,000 per month interest on the cost of issuing a fire-fighting license. The Defendant Company requested I to return the said loan and request I to change.
Accordingly, the Defendant Company decided to repay the outstanding amount of KRW 30 million in the construction site that D received at the request of the Defendant Company (which appears to have been to pay KRW 30 million out of the outstanding amount). Accordingly, on February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 70 million in the F’s account (hereinafter “the instant money”) with the F’s account, and the F wired the said money to the I’s account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that on February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff sought the payment of the above loan since the Plaintiff lent the instant interest to the Defendant without setting the maturity of payment at 1% per month.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the amount of this case is the money invested by the plaintiff's husband C in the defendant company.
B. Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (each statement including each number, and the whole purport of the arguments as to the response of the order to submit tax information to the director of the tax office of the court, whether the amount in this case is a loan to the defendant, the amount in this case is the amount that the plaintiff set the interest to the defendant as 1% per month.