beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. 50,000,000 won to Plaintiff A and 20% per annum from July 3, 2015 to September 30, 2015, respectively.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff B became aware of the Defendant running a restaurant in Japan around 2000, and thereafter dealt with the work of the Defendant’s family in Korea on behalf of the Defendant.
B. Around July 2005, Plaintiff B and the Defendant came to know of the indecent network D (Death on July 22, 2010) and thereafter, the network D had a role of linking the Plaintiff B and the Defendant with money transaction once a month.
C. From May 2006, Plaintiff B consulted to sell the instant apartment at KRW 215 million and 1401,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from around June 2006, the Defendant and the Plaintiff owned, in lieu of the Defendant’s acquisition of the secured debt of the right to collateral security under the name of the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter “National Bank”), Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “National Bank”) established on the instant apartment. The amount of KRW 50 million is KRW 50,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 shall be leased to the instant apartment, in lieu of the payment of the lease deposit, and the remainder of KRW 45,00,00,000,000,00 was paid between May 19, 206 to the Defendant.
On June 16, 2009, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the apartment of this case. On the same day, the Defendant granted a national bank the right to collateral of KRW 24 million with the maximum debt amount of KRW 170 million to repay the loan amount of KRW 120 million with the loan of KRW 170 million, while setting the remainder of KRW 50 million with the interest rate of KRW 0.5% to the Plaintiff B.
E. On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant via the network D through a statement of repayment of KRW 50 million borrowed from A, who received money from his/her husband and wife, on March 19, 2010, and KRW 20 million on April 11, 2010.
At the time, the plaintiff B and the defendant did not prepare a lease contract on the apartment of this case because it is good between them, and the plaintiff A had to the plaintiff B.