beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 84,200,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 30, 2015 to September 20, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On July 13, 2011, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff to borrow KRW 80 million in order to purchase the forest land of this case with C and D (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) from E. The Defendant, upon requesting the Plaintiff to borrow KRW 80 million, upon developing and selling the forest land of this case, agreed to pay KRW 84.2 million in addition to the loan of KRW 80 million and KRW 4.2 million in place, after selling the forest land of this case. The Plaintiff lent KRW 84.2 million to the Defendant, although the Defendant was developing the forest of this case and selling it to F, a third party, and the Plaintiff did not pay the principal amount of KRW 84.2 million in place and profits borrowed from the Plaintiff, or the entire purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of arguments in each of subparagraphs 1-1 through 4, 2, and 3.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 84.2 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 30, 2015 to September 20, 2016, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff seeks, to the Plaintiff, and at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. First, the Defendant borrowed KRW 84.2 million from the Plaintiff in order to purchase the instant forest around July 201, and the same year as of January 18, 2013, in order to purchase the instant forest.
4.1. The defendant alleged that he repaid the sum of KRW 5 million and KRW 25 million to the passbook in the name of G, which is the defendant's mother, by each remittance of KRW 5 million and KRW 25 million. According to the evidence No. 1, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant transferred the sum of KRW 25 million to G as the passbook in the name of G, although it is recognized that the defendant remitted the sum of KRW 25 million to G, the fact that the defendant remitted the sum of KRW 25 million to G is alone.