beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 31,680,000 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from June 20, 2015 to May 12, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the loan claim portion
A. The plaintiff from Apr. 2006 to the defendant of the same year
7. Around October 13, 200 of the Chinese People's Order of 140,000 (hereinafter "the act of borrowing at first half of the year 2006") was lent to the Chinese People's Order of 40,000 (hereinafter "the act of borrowing at first half of the year 2006") between January and October 13, 200, or there is no dispute between the parties, or Gap evidence of 1 (the defendant is recognized as to the existence of the original and the original evidence), Eul evidence of 1, and the whole purport of the pleadings.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the loan to the plaintiff 180,000 bills, except in extenuating circumstances.
B. (1) On the Defendant’s assertion and defense of repayment, the Defendant stated that “A” No. 2 was a copy of the loan that was forged by the Plaintiff, and that there was no 40,000 bill borrowed from the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff did not present the original copy of the evidence No. 2, and when considering the content and form of the evidence No. 2, it is doubtful that the Plaintiff could not recognize the existence of the original evidence No. 2 and the value of the evidence because it appears that the content of the evidence No. 2 is incomplete and the shape overlaps with the reduction between the borrowing date and the borrower's signature.
However, in the written reply submitted for the first time in the instant case, the Defendant led the Plaintiff to borrow the loan out of the amount claimed by the Defendant (see, e.g., Article 2(2)2 of the Answer): Provided, however, there was an agreement between the original Defendant and the Defendant to convert the loan into the amount invested, and only the defense that the loan was paid in kind with factory machinery and equipment or offset the loan by the amount
In addition, from January 28, 2016, it was revealed that the Defendant demanded the presentation of the original evidence No. 2 from the date of pleading on January 28, 2016, and the Plaintiff did not possess it, the Defendant’s 40,000 bill from the Plaintiff.