beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,288,52 to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from October 21, 2017 to October 18, 2019.
Reasons
1. According to Gap's records as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff acknowledged that on August 20, 2015, the plaintiff lent KRW 37 million to the defendant until October 21, 2017, and without interest agreement, on the other hand, the plaintiff was repaid five million out of the above borrowed money.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 32 million (=37 million - 5 million) and damages for delay.
2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant defenses that the defendant paid 16,711,478 won in addition to the plaintiff's 500,000 won out of the above borrowed money.
The fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 21,711,478 on 38 occasions from the Defendant during the period from September 22, 2015 to June 23, 2019 that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant does not have any dispute between the parties, and thus, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,71,478 exceeding KRW 5,000,000 as the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 21,711,478 - KRW 5 million as the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff) as the repayment for the said borrowed amount.
Therefore, as the above defense is well-grounded, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 15,288,522 (i.e., KRW 32 million - KRW 16,711,478) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 21, 2017, which is the day following the due date for payment, until October 18, 2019, which is the date of the ruling of this case, and as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
In regard to this, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant paid the above 16,711,478 won to the plaintiff, which the defendant paid to the plaintiff, was paid for the use of the card in the name of the plaintiff used by the defendant, but there is no evidence to support that the above money was paid as the repayment of the card price. Thus, the above defense cannot be accepted
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition.