beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B shall have full payment of KRW 1,140,00,000 and KRW 300,000,000 among them, starting from March 19, 2012.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim for KRW 360 million on July 14, 201 for loans extended to Defendant B on July 14, 2011
A. Defendant B, on July 14, 201, stated in the loan certificate (No. 2-1) dated 14, 201 that the borrower was the representative director of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have the standing to seek the return of loan. However, in the lawsuit for performance, the Plaintiff had the standing to seek the return of loan. Thus, Defendant B’s defense is without merit.
B. According to the reasoning of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the argument by the Defendant B, the Plaintiff was deemed to have lent KRW 360 million to the Defendant B on July 14, 201 as of September 30, 201. Thus, Defendant B is liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 360 million and damages for delay.
[In light of the purport of Defendant B’s defense prior to the merits, Defendant B appears to have asserted that the borrower is not the Plaintiff but D. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff stated the Plaintiff’s name in the loan certificate (No. 2-1), and that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 360 million from the Plaintiff’s corporate account to Defendant B’s corporate account at the time, the Plaintiff appears to have been the lender of the above KRW 360 million. Accordingly, Defendant B asserts that the said KRW 360 million was not a loan, but an investment amount.
According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, it is recognized that the contract deposit is needed to accept defendant Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), and the above KRW 360 million was borrowed from the plaintiff, and some of the KRW 360 million was used as funds for acceptance of E.
However, in light of the language and text of the loan certificate and the fact that the loan certificate was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, it is difficult to see that the above fact of recognition alone was an investment amount, and there is no counter-proof to reverse the fact that the above KRW 360 million was a loan.
Defendant.