beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. From April 18, 2012 to March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to receive interest of 4% per month by lending a sum of KRW 110 million to the Defendant 11 times, and the Defendant repaid interest from May 18, 2012 to April 2, 2014.
If the interest paid by the Defendant is calculated in accordance with the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act (30% per annum from July 14, 2014, and 25% per annum from the following day), the remainder of the principal as of June 28, 2016 is KRW 28,896,223, and the interest unpaid as of June 28, 2016. Thus, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, within the scope of the agreement, as to the Plaintiff’s total principal and interest amount of KRW 79,204,459, and the principal amount of KRW 50,308,236 from June 29, 2016 to the date of full payment.
B. Although it was true that the Plaintiff transferred the above money claimed to the Defendant to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not lend the above money to the Defendant, but the Defendant’s mother borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff using the above deposit account in the name of the Defendant, so the Defendant did not have any obligation to repay the above money to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination: (a) the Plaintiff wired a total of KRW 14.2 million to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant during the period from April 18, 2012 to March 28, 2014; (b) the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 7,584,00 from each account in the name of the Defendant, D, C, etc. on 43 occasions; or (c) there is no dispute between the parties, or may be recognized by each entry in subparagraph 2-1 to 4.
However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant only with the above-mentioned facts and the statement of No. 3-1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, in full view of the following facts: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 9; (b) evidence Nos. 10-1 to 4; and (c) the testimony of witness E, the Defendant’s mother C is a stock company F.