beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 32,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from March 1, 2018 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The fact that there is no dispute over the summary of the case: (1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a relationship of interest from around 2009 to around 2016.
② The Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant KRW 10 million on November 4, 2009, KRW 5 million on June 24, 2010, KRW 5 million on August 27, 2010, KRW 300,000 on December 29, 2010, KRW 17,000 on February 17, 201, KRW 500,000 on May 25, 201, KRW 32 million on May 25, 201, and KRW 32 million (hereinafter “the instant money”).
The summary of the claim: The plaintiff alleged that he lent the money of this case to the defendant, and the defendant asserted that he donated it to the plaintiff who had been in a relationship of interest at the time.
2. 판 단 ▷갑 1∽11호증의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정을 종합하면, 원고는 이 사건 금원을 피고에게 대여하였다고 봄이 옳다.
▷① 이 사건 금원은 원고의 경제사정에 비추어 고액으로서, 마이너스대출 또는 친구로부터 빌린 돈을 재원으로 피고에게 각 송금하였다.
The Plaintiff did not have been able to freely donate the said money without having experienced economic burden, and rather, it is interpreted that “to repay when a business (construction company) is recovered,” the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant with financial difficulties and accords with the empirical rule.
② Although the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff would have donated the instant money to the Defendant difficult for circumstances, it is difficult to view it as the use of the royalty in light of the amount and time of transfer of each of the instant money.
The defendant's assertion that he denied the plaintiff's demand for repayment, and that "the plaintiff urged the plaintiff to purchase the apartment, but the defendant declared that he refused to sell the apartment, and sent the money from that time to that time," and that "it was proved that he did not claim to the plaintiff at the main point located in Ansan-si, but rather because he demanded the repayment of the money of this case, the plaintiff did not change the apartment."