beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 29, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 5 as to the cause of the claim and all the arguments, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 37,000,000 on May 31, 2016 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 29, 2016 to the day of full payment, as to the above loans No. 37,00,000 and the amount of KRW 37,000 on May 31, 2016.
2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserted that the defendant conspired with the plaintiff and the non-party C, deceiving the defendant, and accordingly, the defendant borrowed money to the plaintiff. Thus, this constitutes a contract by fraud and thus revoked, and the defendant has a duty to return unjust enrichment upon cancellation, but the defendant has no obligation to pay it by transferring it to the non-party C, and there is no outstanding interest.
B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, evidence Nos. 6, 5, and 6, the Plaintiff and Nonparty C prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the purport of lending KRW 50,000,000 on May 27, 2016 between the Plaintiff and Nonparty C, and the Defendant filed a complaint with the Plaintiff and Nonparty C on August 30, 2016 to the Jeonnamnam Police Station on suspicion of fraud, and the above case was subject to a disposition of suspension of witness on March 21, 2017.
However, the above facts and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone are not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff conspireds with the non-party C to lend the above loan by deceiving the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 6, the authentic deed of a monetary loan agreement prepared between the plaintiff and the non-party C was prepared on behalf of the defendant; the defendant requested the plaintiff to lend KRW 37,000,000 to the plaintiff; and the above lending was made; and the message sent and received by the plaintiff and the defendant.