beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff's claims added by this court are dismissed.
2. The appeal costs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that operated a mutual club called “D” (hereinafter “instant club”) in the vicinity of Gangnam-gu Seoul, and the Defendant and E worked at the business team of the instant club and received piece rates according to the business performance.
B. On May 12, 2017, the Defendant prepared a cash custody certificate stating that the Plaintiff received KRW 15,000,000 from the Plaintiff.
C. On May 25, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant on the same day; (b) the Defendant prepared and issued a cash loan certificate to the Plaintiff on the same day; and (c) the said loan certificate states that “The Defendant shall confirm to borrow KRW 15,00,000 from the Plaintiff on May 12, 2017, and the remainder of KRW 15,00,000 from the Plaintiff on May 25, 2017.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the amount of the Defendant borrowed from the Plaintiff is KRW 30,000,000 (= KRW 15,000,000 paid on May 12, 2017) (hereinafter the above KRW 30,000,000 paid on May 25, 2017).
(2) Meanwhile, on March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 9,700,000 to the Defendant, separate from the instant loan amount, by transferring KRW 8,703,000,000 after deducting interest from the Defendant. Thus, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 9, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 8,703,00 to the Defendant on March 13, 2017 is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 9,70,000 to the Defendant on March 13, 2017. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the fact of recognition alone alone, as well as the instant loan amount, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable as it is without merit.
B. As to the amount repaid out of the borrowed amount of this case 1.