beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 41,100,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 3, 2017 to January 11, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was living together with C from around 2007 to the end of December 201, and was in de facto marital relationship.
B. The Plaintiff, around November 2010, was introduced by C with a long-term knowledge of her female, and the Defendant was operating a construction company in Gangwon-do at the time.
C. Around October 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the ground that the Plaintiff, although the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and the profits, by deceiving the Plaintiff to pay KRW 70 million later if it invests KRW 20 million, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff to acquire KRW 58 million from the Plaintiff. As a result of the investigation, the Defendant was subject to a decision on October 19, 2016 on the charge of fraud (Evidence of Evidence).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6-1, 5 and Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 by the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) KRW 20 million on April 18, 201; (b) KRW 27,00,000 on May 27, 201; (c) KRW 18,00,000 on August 17, 201; (d) KRW 90,000 on March 15, 201; and (e) KRW 1,00 on July 1, 2013.
5. Around five times including KRW 9 million, a total of KRW 76.9 million was loaned from the Defendant and the Defendant was reimbursed KRW 16.9 million. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid loan amount of KRW 60 million.
2) The Defendant alleged that the Defendant borrowed KRW 58 million from the Plaintiff on April 18, 201, KRW 20 million on May 27, 2011, and KRW 20 million on August 17, 2011, and KRW 58 million on August 17, 201. However, since the Defendant lent or repaid KRW 80.9 million on eight occasions from April 1, 201 to November 30, 201, the Plaintiff’s claims were entirely extinguished due to set-off or repayment with the above loan claims, first of all, on the grounds of the judgment on the ground of the claim that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 58 million to the Defendant from April 18, 2011 to August 17, 2011, there was no dispute between the parties.
As to whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 9.9 million to the Defendant on March 15, 2012, and KRW 9.9 million on July 15, 2013, according to the records of evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff’s each of the above to the Defendant.