beta
Text
1. The defendant's loans, etc. to the plaintiff of Seoul Southern District Court 2003Gahap15649 dated October 5, 2004
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. (i) On December 31, 199, the Defendant entered into a construction contract for the construction of apartment, commercial, underground parking lots, and auxiliary facilities on the ground of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government land with the reconstruction housing association (hereinafter “association”) on December 31, 199. At the time, the executives of the association, such as the head of the Defendant’s association D, jointly and severally guaranteed the obligations of the association against the Defendant.
Luxembourg and the Defendant entered into the said construction contract with the Association, and the Defendant agreed to guarantee the obligation to return loans, such as relocation expenses, to the members of the Association.
Fidelity Defendant lent the above money to the union and its members in accordance with the above agreement, and the Plaintiff borrowed the money from the Defendant on November 20, 1998 as moving expenses, and the same year.
6. 11. Each 40,000,000 won, and the same year.
8. The amount of KRW 70,000,000 for 30.70.70,000 for 20,000,000 for 16.16.80,000 for 19.30,000 for 300,000 for 300,000 for 300,000 for 30.0 for 300,000 for 19.
In addition, on January 23, 2002, the defendant supplied 938,800,000 construction cost for the construction of multi-household 16 households on the land outside Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, and completed it.
B. (i) The Plaintiff did not repay the loan repayment date agreed upon, and the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 8, 2003 (Seoul Southern District Court 2003Gahap15649) claiming the return of the loan of this case (Seoul Southern District Court 2003Gahap15649).
D. On October 5, 2004, the court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of recommending reconciliation in this case") with the following contents as of October 5, 2004, and the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case is the same as the original defendant did not raise any objection.