beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,404,811 as well as 5% per annum from July 1, 2013 to November 2, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with a total of KRW 118,928,611 from March 2009 to September 201.
B. On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a quasi-loan agreement with the object of a loan for consumption on KRW 56,378,611 as the unpaid goods amount, and drafted a loan certificate with the principal of the borrowed amount as determined by June 30, 2013.
(hereinafter referred to as "the loan claims in this case").
From January 2, 2012 to October 4, 2016, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 16,973,800 from the Defendant’s loan receivables in this case.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the balance of the borrowed amount of KRW 39,404,811 (=56,378,611 - 16,973,800) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 1, 2013 to November 2, 2017, the day following the due date for payment, which is the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant repaid KRW 40,017,200 in total from December 31, 2012 to May 2, 2017.
In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence Nos. 1 and 12, as well as evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) transaction of the goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant exists separately from the transaction of the goods in this case and the quasi loan agreement of this case; and (b) the Defendant’s repayment details exceeding KRW 16,973,80,000, which the Plaintiff was repaid, are not the repayment of the loan claim of this case, but the Defendant’s repayment details against C Co., Ltd., which the Defendant transferred to the account of C Co., Ltd.
In light of these circumstances, only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 are written.