beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 200,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 24, 2015 to June 10, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, from around 197 to around 1997, was a person who cultivated snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick snick
B. From November 21, 201 to January 9, 2012, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 220,000,000 to the Defendant and his spouse E by means of remitting from the Plaintiff’s and his spouse E account to the Defendant, F, and G account. The Defendant returned KRW 20,00,000 out of the above loans.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 12, 14, 16 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, acquired KRW 220,000,00 from the Plaintiff for the acquisition of fish farms, thereby seeking the payment of damages against the Defendant due to a tort.
The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence mentioned above, Gap13 evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 113 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) the F has completed each registration of ownership transfer on November 25, 201 with respect to the land H and the above ground buildings located in the Gyeong-dong, Gyeong-dong, Gyeongnam, where Yang fishing ground is located on December 9, 201; (ii) the Defendant has completed each registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale on November 25, 201; (iii) the Defendant’s account in the F’s name; (v) the amount of KRW 50,000,000 on the 30th of the same month; and (v) the amount of KRW 24,00,000 on the 39,000 on the 22nd of the same month; and
9. The Defendant asserts that he remitted KRW 45,000,000 to the 14th of the same month, and KRW 10,000,000,00 each, and ③ on August 6, 2012, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s demand for return without having prepared a contract, inasmuch as the Defendant was to use it only for a short period from October 201 to December 2011, and lent KRW 200,000,000 from the Plaintiff to the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office.