beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 115,00,000 as well as the annual 6% from November 12, 2015 to June 29, 2018 to the Plaintiff, and the following.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C entered into an agreement on the operation of the business of importing and selling Norway (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and agreed on July 20, 2014 through September 15, 2014 to borrow KRW 200 million for operating the Plaintiff’s business expenses. The period of use is limited to the period of September 15, 2014, and the Defendant and C shall pay damages within 30 days after the end of the period of use, and the Defendant shall be responsible for the import and smooth supply of the Norway, and C shall take charge of the collection of domestic sales and sales proceeds of the soft scrap supplied by the Defendant, and the proceeds accrued from the said business shall be distributed in 1/3 each.
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 120 million to the Defendant, including KRW 40 million on July 18, 2014, and KRW 80 million on July 21, 2014, with the operating capital of the foregoing business.
C. However, the Defendant did not entirely proceed with the instant agreement, and on September 15, 2014, expressed to the Plaintiff the intent to deposit the principal received by selling the business loss in installments.
On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff returned KRW 5 million from the Defendant’s side of the above business costs, and the Defendant expressed again the intent to repay the unpaid principal as recovered to the Plaintiff on April 14, 2015.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10 through 14, 22, 24, 25, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 9, 21-1, 2, 3, Eul witness's witness's testimony, part of Eul witness's testimony, the result of this court's financial transaction information inquiry into the director of corporate bank business support division, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence presented prior to the aforementioned findings, namely, the existence of a separate oral agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant prior to the date of the preparation of the instant business agreement, are insufficient, and the Plaintiff’s business operation funds are final.