beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,600,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 19, 2017 to September 27, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Determination on the amount transferred to the Defendant’s account is KRW 10 million on November 22, 2013, KRW 3.6 million on January 15, 2014, KRW 30 million on March 7, 2014, KRW 10 million on March 14, 2014, KRW 10 million on March 14, 2014, KRW 78.6 million on March 222, 2014, KRW 5 million on April 11, 2014, and KRW 3.6 million on April 5, 2014 (i.e., KRW 10 million on loan, KRW 3.6 million on loan, KRW 2.6 million on loan, and KRW 5 million on loan, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to dispute between the parties.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should additionally pay to the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 20 million and damages for delay, as the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant, including KRW 5 million on December 13, 2013 and KRW 15 million on December 16, 2013.
According to the overall purport of each statement and pleading of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and each statement and pleading, the Plaintiff may be recognized as the fact that the Plaintiff remitted to D the total sum of KRW 20 million, including KRW 5 million on December 13, 2013, KRW 15 million on December 16, 2013, and KRW 4 million on the date on which D received each of the above money, and that D remitted the same amount to C, the representative director of the Defendant.
However, it is difficult to find out the following circumstances, which can be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 5 through 10, Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 14, and 15, and each statement of evidence Nos. 5 through 10, and Nos. 1, 1, 3, 9, 10, 14, and 15, that is, since the Plaintiff had already known the Defendant’s account number, it is difficult to transfer each of the above money to D even if it was possible to directly transfer the money to the Defendant’s account, and it is difficult to find out the reason for D to transfer it to C. Even upon the Plaintiff’s assertion, C is a representative director in the form of