beta
Text
The defendant's KRW 34,900,000 to the plaintiff and its 5% per annum from March 25, 2020 to December 23, 2020.
Reasons
1. On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff lent KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant as the name of the construction price, and on May 30, 2018, the fact that the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant as of May 30, 2018 is without dispute between the parties, or that it is recognized by the evidence A1 (Evidence).
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60,000,000 won with 12% interest per annum from March 25, 2020 to the date following the due date for payment, which is obvious that it is the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint sought by the plaintiff after the due date, unless there are other special circumstances.
2. In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that as between July 5, 2018 and February 15, 2019, 43,810,000 won as shown in the Defendant’s argument, the remaining debt amount is KRW 16,190,000 as the Defendant paid 18 times through the Defendant’s principal account (IBK Bank C; hereinafter the Defendant’s account) or its branch account, as between July 5, 2018 and February 15, 2019.
In this regard, the plaintiff asserted that although 43,810,000 won of the defendant's assertion was transferred from the defendant's account under the name of the defendant, the plaintiff's husband who was the plaintiff's employee was in transaction with the plaintiff using the bank account under the name of the defendant, and the equivalent amount was repaid as part of the compensation liability amount equivalent to 1,60,000 won against the plaintiff, E.
Therefore, the issue is whether the Defendant’s account transfer amount of KRW 43,810,00 to the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s repayment of the instant loan to the Plaintiff or whether the Defendant’s husband exists, and whether the Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff exists and the debt is appropriated for the repayment of the debt.
On the other hand, the account in the name of the defendant is presumed to be the repayment deposit by the so-called financial transaction real name system.
However, in full view of the contents of Gap's 4, 5, 6, and 7-1 through 8, Gap's 1 through 4, Gap's 9-1 and 2, the defendant's husband's husband's Eul is an employee of the plaintiff's company operated by the plaintiff.