beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from May 23, 2014 to January 28, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status of the Defendant (one person C) of the parties, etc. is the father and D’s husband and wife, and E is the male and female of the Defendant, and F and the Defendant are married with G (one person H) in fact in a way that they are in a marital relationship.
B. 1) The Defendant is in Seo-gu, Daejeon (Road Name Address Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon) K Apartment 107 Dong 1506 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(2) The Defendant paid KRW 170,000,000 in total amount of KRW 150,000,000 for the lease deposit, and KRW 400,000 for the monthly rent. (2) The Defendant paid KRW 50,00,000 for the apartment from the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 170,000 for the amount of KRW 20,000 for the lease deposit, whichever was later, returned KRW 150,00,000 for the above lease deposit. The amount of KRW 20,000 for the apartment to repair the apartment.
3) The plaintiff and D reside in the apartment of this case since the termination of the above lease contract. [Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff and D have no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 6 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
each entry, the purport of the whole pleading
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion lent KRW 170,000 to the defendant. Since the defendant did not repay it, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of KRW 170,000,000 and delay damages.
B. In the facts of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 (the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established, in the absence of any dispute over the land sales contract and seal image part), Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 (a dispute over the agreement and seal image part, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the document was invalid because it was not implemented according to the terms) and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 (a document is presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document. The plaintiff defense that this document was not implemented as a condition, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it as invalid), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 6, witness testimony, and witness witness testimony.