beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 9,515,00 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from January 3, 2017 to March 23, 2018.
Reasons
1. Chief;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (the Plaintiff’s claim) 1) lent KRW 61,627,363 in total to the Defendant from February 13, 2010 to December 8, 2014, by lending several KRW 61,627,363, such as lending KRW 300,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant repaid only KRW 3,30,000 among them. Accordingly, the Defendant must pay KRW 58,327,363 to the Plaintiff (the specific details of lending or lending are as stated in the relevant part of the grounds for the claim that was modified.
(2) The Defendant filed a claim for damages amounting to KRW 9,515,000,000 for total damages by intrusioning on “C Beauty Room” operated by the Plaintiff at night 11:30 on January 2, 2017, when the Plaintiff promoted the payment of the said loan.
(A) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff money with compensation for damages, in accordance with the following: (a) the details of the damage caused by the damage or the details of the damage caused by the damage.
B. The Defendant’s assertion (Counterclaim Claim) 1) lent KRW 53,093,810,000 to the Plaintiff several times from July 26, 2010 to January 5, 2015, in total, KRW 52,226,810 to the Defendant if the Defendant deducteds KRW 867,00 from the said money from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff must pay KRW 52,226,810 to the Defendant (specific details of lending, details of lending, and details of credit, etc. are as indicated in the grounds for the counterclaim claim.
(2) On March 2016, the Defendant purchased a vehicle listed in the separate sheet and allowed the Plaintiff to use the said vehicle while living together with the Plaintiff.
However, although the defendant demanded the plaintiff to deliver the above vehicle, the defendant does not return it.
2. Determination:
A. 1) Determination as to the principal claim of this lawsuit is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above monetary loan solely with the records, etc. on Gap’s 1 through 13 and Gap’s 35 and 37 (including paper numbers), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above claim cannot be accepted.