beta
Text
1. The Defendants each amounting to KRW 130,000,000 to the Plaintiff, respectively, and KRW 250,000 per month from January 11, 2018 to March 9, 2018.
Reasons
1. Facts and determination of recognition
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 7 (including each number), the plaintiff remitted KRW 130 million to the defendant Eul on February 7, 2014, and KRW 120 million to the defendant C on the following day, and lent KRW 130 million to the defendant C on the check. The defendants paid KRW 250,000 as interest on the loan each month to the plaintiff.
B. The Defendants asserted that ① the money paid to the Plaintiff was invested to realize the resale profit, ② the amount of KRW 250,000 per month paid to the Plaintiff is a kind of “profit distribution money” that is paid to the Plaintiff for the purchase of the apartment subject to investment, and ③ there was an agreement that the parents would not recover the investment money before they returned to the Plaintiff.
However, there is no specific explanation as to what kind of “investment” was made by the Plaintiff to the Defendants, who are the births (such as the role of the Defendants, the benefits that the Plaintiff obtained by investing in the Defendants, and the evidence that the Plaintiff paid KRW 260 million was used for the purchase of the apartment in Kimpo, etc.), and the evidence in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, it is insufficient to accept the Defendants’ assertion.
C. Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed interest calculated at the rate of KRW 250,000 per month from January 11, 2018 to March 9, 2018, on the record that the Plaintiff is the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15,00 per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.
2. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.