beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 26, 2011 to February 22, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement No. 1-1, No. 2, and No. 2, the Plaintiff offered that the Defendant would pay the profits accrued from the purchase and sale of merchandise coupons as a sales agent, and requested the Defendant’s employees to pay KRW 30 million to C, a total of KRW 60 million on April 11, 201, and KRW 30 million on April 18, 2011, and then requested the purchase and sale agent for merchandise coupons as a sales agent. Since the officers of the above company were investigated by fraud consultation, the Plaintiff provided that the Plaintiff would return the above money paid to the Defendant on April 25, 201, and the Defendant confirmed that the Plaintiff would pay to the Plaintiff by May 25, 2011.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60 million won under the payment agreement with the loan certificate of this case and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from May 26, 2011 to February 22, 2017, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.
2. The defendant asserts that the above amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant was not loaned money to the defendant with the investment in the above company, and that the loan certificate of this case (Evidence A 2) is invalid as the plaintiff forced to collect the above investment amount.
No evidence exists to acknowledge that the loan certificate of this case was drafted by coercion.
Therefore, even if the plaintiff did not actually lend the above KRW 60 million to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money in accordance with the payment agreement on the loan certificate of this case. Therefore, the above argument is without merit.
3...