beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 140,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 15, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. As to the cause of claim
A. The Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff as of October 31, 2013 by the due date until November 7, 2013, and borrowed KRW 100 million as of April 9, 2014 by the due date for repayment until April 16, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant loan obligation”) is either in dispute between the parties, or in accordance with the purport of the entry in the evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings.
B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the borrowed money of KRW 140 million and damages for delay.
2. As to the defense
A. The Defendant: (i) remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million on April 10, 2014; (ii) KRW 15 million on May 7, 2014; (iii) KRW 15 million on June 25, 2014; (iv) KRW 26.5 million on June 26, 2014; and (v) KRW 145 million on September 5, 2014; and (ii) designated and remitted to the Plaintiff as the repayment of the instant loan; (iii) accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan obligation was fully repaid.
B. Therefore, the facts that the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 50 million on April 10, 2014; ② KRW 15 million on May 7, 2014; ③ KRW 15 million on June 25, 2014; ④ KRW 26,5 million on June 26, 2014; ⑤ KRW 50 million on September 5, 2014; and ⑤ KRW 145 million on September 5, 2014, are either in dispute between the parties or in light of the overall purport of the statement and oral argument as prescribed in subparagraph 5; in view of the following various circumstances, each of the statement in subparagraph 1-1 and 2 of subparagraph alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid KRW 140 million on the loan as the pretext of the instant loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Secondly, on October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the construction cost of KRW 1.1 billion (including value added tax). The Defendant entered into an agreement to pay the Plaintiff additionally KRW 34.8 million under the pretext of adding the said construction cost, and the Defendant entered into a contract to pay the Plaintiff KRW 34.8 million.