beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 63,689,730 and its interest on February 12, 2013.
Reasons
1. Determination on the occurrence of loan
A. The Plaintiff’s lending of money to the Defendant as indicated in the following table does not conflict between the parties, or the interest rate for the lending date set forth in Gap’s evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the record No. 24% per annum of Sep. 6, 2004 (24% per annum of Dec. 31, 2005), 24% per annum of 15,000 won per annum of Dec. 31, 2004 (24% per annum of Dec. 31, 2005) and the Defendant, surety C, with the exception of KRW 9.24 million per annum of Apr. 14, 2005, and KRW 1,000 per annum of 1,50,000 per annum of 1,50,000 won per annum, excluding KRW 1,500,000 per annum.
B. The plaintiff asserts that on December 22, 2004, the defendant lent KRW 10 million to the defendant on December 22, 2004.
As shown in the Plaintiff’s above assertion, there are three (3) evidence No. 2, and the lender’s signature and seal on the part of the lender of the above loan is the Defendant’s mother, C’s signature and seal, and the guarantor’s signature and seal on the part of the surety.
However, considering the statement No. 2-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 2-2, the appraisal result of appraiser E, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above loan certificate shows that the defendant's signature is not written by the defendant, and it is not clear whether the stamp image affixed next thereto is based on the seal of the defendant. Thus, the above evidence No. 2-3 of the above evidence No. 2-3 cannot be proven as it is impossible to recognize the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the loan of December 22, 2004.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
C. The defendant asserts that the lending was not borrowed from the plaintiff with respect to the No. 5, but only received and delivered as a loan for investment in F.
However, considering the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the details of transactions, and the amount remitted, this is the money borrowed by the Defendant from the Plaintiff.