beta
Text
1. On June 12, 2013, the Defendant’s claim for loans against the Plaintiff (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Da4412) was made.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) filed an application with the Plaintiff for payment of the principal and interest at a rate of 60 million won per annum from June 1, 2008 to June 1, 2008, with the following purport: (b) the shopping mall was the representative director of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”); (c) the shopping mall did not proceed as originally agreed upon; and (d) the shopping mall returned the sales price and interest to the Defendant, who was the buyer, in around 2005, the sales price and interest; and (d) if the shopping mall borrowed the amount of KRW 60 million per annum from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff for five months, the Defendant would have borrowed the said money with a loan certificate of KRW 1 million per month; but (d) the Plaintiff still did not receive the principal and interest; (e) the Plaintiff claimed for payment of the principal and interest.
B. On June 12, 2013, the instant court issued a payment order to pay the Plaintiff’s above claim amount (hereinafter “instant payment order”).
The instant payment order was served on the Plaintiff on June 24, 2013, and the objection was dismissed on July 10, 2013, when the period for raising an objection was elapsed by the Plaintiff.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no fact that the defendant borrowed the subscription price returned from the defendant to the defendant, and there is no fact that the defendant prepared a loan certificate, and there is no fact that the defendant paid interest that he received, and that compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be denied.
The defendant, the representative director of D, around 204, agreed to borrow the sale price of D and the interest of KRW 60 million that D must return to the defendant through E, who is his own private partnership and employee of D, and to pay the interest of KRW 2 million per month, but it is difficult to do so on May 10, 2005. As such, the defendant again borrowed the interest of KRW 60 million through the above E for the five-month period, and agreed to pay the interest of KRW 1 million per month.