Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 78,165,462 against the Plaintiff and its related costs from May 17, 2017 to July 19, 2019 against the Defendant.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The plaintiff and the defendant are children between the network D and the network C, and the plaintiff is the defendant.
I borrowed on May 21, 2009, KRW 50 million, and KRW 50 million on June 18, 2009, from KRW 100 million, from KRW C and one other (Plaintiff).
Therefore, I will pay the principal and statutory interest by June 18, 201.
On June 18, 2009, the name of the borrower: on June 18, 2009, the defendant, on June 18, 2009, prepared a certificate of money borrowing with the following contents, with the borrower as the defendant, the other party, the plaintiff, and the loan amount of KRW 100 million:
(A) No. 4, hereinafter referred to as “the first document of this case”). At present, the first document of this case’s monetary use is owned by the Plaintiff.
On September 30, 2010, the defendant, the debtor, the creditor, and the amount borrowed by the plaintiff as KRW 300,000,000, prepared a monetary borrowed document with the following contents:
(B) No. 2, hereinafter referred to as “the second document of this case”). At present, the second document of this case is owned by the Defendant.
It is not reasonable for the Defendant to borrow the above money from the obligor, and the principal will be paid to you on September 30, 2015, and the interest will be paid on the last day of each quarter. The interest will be paid on the last day of each quarter.
The first interest payment date is December 31, 2010, 300 million won x 5% x 1/4=3750,000 won, and shall be paid as above each quarter until maturity.
On September 30, 2010, the name of the debtor: The name of the creditor of the defendant: the defendant on January 1, 2012, the debtor, the creditor, and the plaintiff on January 1, 2012, prepared a document for borrowing money with the following contents:
(A) No. 5, hereinafter referred to as the “third money tea certificate of this case”). At present, the third money tea certificate of this case is owned by the plaintiff.
It seems that it is a clerical error in the ‘suppression' of the ‘suppression' of the monetary rent certificate.