beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and above.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff transferred the Defendant’s agricultural bank account of KRW 5 million on July 29, 2004, KRW 4.5 million on August 10, 2004, KRW 200 million on September 24, 2004, KRW 1.5 million on September 15, 2004, KRW 1.5 million on October 15, 2004, KRW 1.5 million on October 25, 2004, KRW 2 million on November 30, 2004, KRW 700,000 on November 31, 2005, KRW 1.5 million on February 16, 2005, and KRW 1.5 million on February 15, 2005, respectively.
B. On March 25, 2005, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate (No. 2, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) stating that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 16.5 million from the Plaintiff until the end of each year, with the intention to pay in full.” to the Plaintiff.
C. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff remitted the Defendant’s above Nonghyup account KRW 10 million on March 31, 2005, KRW 700,000 on May 31, 2005, KRW 1300,000 on June 13, 2005, KRW 1300,000 on June 30, 2005, KRW 150,000 on July 13, 2005, KRW 210,000 on October 12, 2005, KRW 200,000 on November 10, 2005, KRW 60,00 on April 19, 2006, KRW 300,000 on June 14, 2007, to the Defendant’s account with each of the Defendant’s post offices’ accounts.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-21, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a loan to the Defendant, since the Plaintiff transferred to the account of the Defendant, D, and F from July 29, 2004 to November 26, 2007, KRW 36.6 million. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 36.6 million and its delay damages.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 33.6 million under the pretext of living expenses, etc. while having a relationship with the Defendant with the Defendant. The loan certificate (Evidence A2) of this case is only written by the Plaintiff’s intimidation. Even if the loan amounted to KRW 36.6 million on home constitutes a loan, it constitutes illegal consideration since it was given to maintain a relationship with the Defendant, and thus, it constitutes illegal consideration. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be accepted.
3. Determination
A. The determination of the cause of the claim is based on the facts of the above recognition as to the claim of KRW 16.5 million related to the loan certificate of this case.