beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 45,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 10, 2013 to November 28, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From August 27, 2012 to August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,325,000 to Defendant C.
B. After that, on December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff and Defendant C determined the due date on December 9, 2013 as KRW 45,00,000 including interest, etc.
【Ground for Recognition: Each entry of Evidence Nos. 1 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of recognition of the claim against Defendant C, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a delay payment amounting to KRW 45,000,000, and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 10, 2013 to November 28, 2015, which is the delivery date of the application for modification of the purport of the claim of this case, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. (1) The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent KRW 45,00,00 to the defendant Eul. Thus, according to the plaintiff's statement No. 1, the plaintiff could be acknowledged that the plaintiff remitted part of the money to the bank account under the defendant Eul's name. However, considering the whole purport of the argument in the statement No. 5 and No. 7, the defendant Eul borrowed the above money from the plaintiff, and it is recognized that the plaintiff also recognized that the above money transaction is a transaction with the defendant Eul, not with the defendant Eul. In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant Eul, and it is insufficient to recognize that the statement No. 8 is sufficient to prove that the above money transaction is a transaction with the defendant Eul, not with the defendant Eul. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
(2) In other words, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B had the obligation to repay the above loan with Defendant C by means of the daily home-based authority, and according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, it is recognized that Defendant B and Defendant C married on April 26, 1993, but divorced on March 27, 2014.