beta
Text
1. As to KRW 58,00,000 and KRW 56,000 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 58,00,000 from December 1, 2012, and KRW 2,00,00.
Reasons
1. According to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff loaned money to the defendant by means of remitting KRW 56,00,000 to C, etc. designated by the defendant from December 24, 2011 to July 26, 2012. The defendant borrowed KRW 92,000,000 from the plaintiff on July 27, 2012, and the defendant borrowed KRW 92,00,000 from the plaintiff until November 30, 2012.
“The Plaintiff, on October 27, 2014, may recognize that the Plaintiff loaned the said money to the Defendant by means of remitting KRW 2,000,000 to D as designated by the Defendant on October 27, 2014.
As examined below, the defendant did not dispute over KRW 2,00,000 on October 27, 2014, which the plaintiff claimed to have additionally lent the loan as follows.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 58,00,000 won and 56,000,000 won from December 1, 2012, which is the day after the due date for repayment due to the loan certificate, 2,00,000 won from October 28, 2014, which is the next day of the lending date, to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 28, 2014 to March 25, 2020, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% 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.
2. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion asserts that although the defendant had been continuously engaged in money transactions with the plaintiff, the plaintiff made an investment in the defendant, and that the plaintiff prepared a certificate of loan (Evidence A A) by intimidation and coercion of the plaintiff.
However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is not sufficient to view that the defendant prepared the above loan certificate by threat or coercion of the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and so long as the authenticity of the disposal document is recognized, the court shall make its contents clear and acceptable unless there is any counter-proof that the contents are denied.