beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 52,20,000 as well as 15% per annum from July 1, 2018 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C, which was the head of the team of the fund-raising company, solicited the Plaintiff to pay a high amount of interest to the person who paid the money at the time of raising the money, according to the Defendant’s horse. The Plaintiff wired the sum of KRW 53 million from July 19, 2017 to July 20, 2017 to C, and C deposited all the money transferred to the Defendant in the name of the head of the passbook.
B. Since the first two months, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the Defendant as the Plaintiff did not pay the interest properly, and the Defendant prepared and issued a letter of loan stating that “The above amount shall be borrowed as a separate prize (Plaintiff 52 million won) and repaid until the end of June 2018.”
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 7, Eul 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Determination
(a) In general, in a case where the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the existence of an expression of intent expressed in the document and the existence of a juristic act in its contents must be recognized, unless there are special circumstances as acceptable and acceptable, to the contrary.
B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu16505, Mar. 23, 1990).
Examining the above facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 52.2 million to the Plaintiff by June 2018, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 52.2 million per annum from July 1, 2018, which is the day following the due date of delivery of a copy of the complaint, to the day of full payment, calculated by 15% per annum from July 1, 2018 to the day of full payment.
C. As the Defendant did not transfer the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Defendant did not have probative value against the objective truth, and thus, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent, not the truth, is null and void.