beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 45,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 31, 2012 to May 24, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff promised to pay KRW 30,000,000,000, including interest, to the Plaintiff on November 19, 201, without any dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) with the Defendant on November 20, 201, and lent KRW 20,000 to the Defendant’s personal account on November 20, 201; ② the Defendant again lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 31, 201; ② the Plaintiff promised to pay KRW 45,00,000,000, including interest, to the Plaintiff on January 31, 201, and added the loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) to the Plaintiff on October 10, 201, respectively.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 45,00,000,000 with the principal and interest of the loan and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 31, 2012, the due date for payment, to May 24, 2018, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day until the due date for payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that he was obtained by deception to C, and that he did not withdraw all the above money and fled, so the plaintiff asserts to the purport that he should request C to pay the money.
However, as long as the holder of a loan certificate or account is the defendant, the defendant's above assertion is not legally meaningful, and there is no reason to accept it differently.
B. The defendant asserts that since the defendant promised to succeed to the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff as a letter of performance of the promise (No. 1) by D, the plaintiff is also entitled to claim against D.
In particular, there is no defendant's argument on this part.