beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 104,180,00 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from December 8, 2018 to October 23, 2019.
Reasons
1. With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 257,500,000,000, which was loaned by the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 100,000,000 out of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s claim was based on the Plaintiff’s claim, not its own claim.
However, in a performance suit, the eligibility of the defendant is nominal by the plaintiff's own claim and the judgment is absorptioned into the judgment on the propriety of the claim, so the person alleged as the performance obligor becomes a legitimate defendant (Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451 delivered on November 28, 1995), and the defendant's prior defense on the merits is groundless.
2. Judgment on the merits
A. (1) Determination on the cause of claim 1) The Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 350,00,000 to the Defendant as indicated in the “Loan for the Plaintiff’s Claim”, but the Defendant partially repaid the loan amount of KRW 257,50,000,000, which remains unpaid to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 257,50,000,000 from the Plaintiff in cash on October 2, 2016, and KRW 100,000,000 as a check on October 31, 2016, and the same month.
7. The fact that a total of KRW 220,000,000 received by account transfer and received by account transfer and borrowed KRW 220,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) is no dispute between the parties concerned.
(1) The Defendant, on April 8, 2019, led to a confession of KRW 220 million from the Plaintiff, and received KRW 465,650,00 from the Plaintiff or C from the Plaintiff on August 30, 2019, the Defendant recognized that the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff only was KRW 100,000,000, out of the remainder, borrowed KRW 100,000 from C, and claimed that KRW 265,560,000 is the amount invested from the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the confession on April 8, 2019 was against the truth and due to mistake. However, the Defendant’s confession still remains valid.