beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
Reasons
1. The Defendant received a total of KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff on February 25, 2010, and KRW 27,000,000 on March 5, 2010, and KRW 50,000,000 on March 9, 2010, from the Plaintiff as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim; the Defendant, on March 5, 2010, prepared a loan certificate with the content that the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,00,000 from the Plaintiff as the maturity of one month, and delivered it to the Plaintiff, either there is no dispute between the parties or is recognized by the statement in subparagraph 3.
According to the above facts, since the defendant borrowed KRW 50,00,000 to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay as stipulated by the Civil Act and the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 5, 2010, which is the following day of the period when the plaintiff was paid interest.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. (1) On June 29, 2010, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) purchased the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment 104 Dong 1107 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) for KRW 313,00,000; (b) deducted the amount of KRW 68,000,000 from the security loan; and (c) deducted the amount of KRW 150,000,000 from the deposit; and (d) the remaining amount of KRW 95,00,000 from the security loan to the Plaintiff and C, one-half.
The Defendant paid on behalf of the Plaintiff KRW 47,500,000 ( KRW 95,000,000 x 1/2) which was to be borne by the Plaintiff, thereby appropriating the amount equivalent to the above amount out of the borrowed money against the Plaintiff.
The Defendant, on September 30, 2010, remitted 5,500,000 won to the Plaintiff (=50,000,000 won--47,50,000).
Accordingly, the defendant paid all the borrowed money to the plaintiff.
(2) If the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement is rejected on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have to bear the purchase fund of the instant apartment, the instant apartment is purchased by the Defendant and two persons with the purchase fund. The Plaintiff received the share of the Defendant out of the purchase price of the said apartment.