beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no counter-proof evidence as to Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-2, witness C's testimony, witness Eul's witness's testimony, part of witness D's testimony, our bank and new bank's whole purport of arguments as a result of each financial transaction information inquiry.
(1) On October 17, 2013, the Defendant prepared a transfer contract stating that the Plaintiff shall pay interest 3% to the Plaintiff, and that “if any loss is incurred due to the Plaintiff’s promise to make an investment (200 million won), and if the loss is sustained for more than two months, the transfer of the business site located on the E and 2nd floor in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be promised, and that “the Defendant shall promise the Plaintiff to pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff by October 17, 2013, and March 16, 2014,” respectively.
(2) On October 17, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) provided money to C in the form of a capital investment; (b) obtained information related to the investment of shares from the Defendant’s partner D; and (c) C invested the said money in the shares; (d) however, there was a loss as to the said investment amount.
B. According to the above facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 200 million to the plaintiff as agreed in the letter of this case.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s argument
A. As to this, the defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the plaintiff as the introduction of C, and used KRW 100 million out of them as an urgent business fund, and the remaining KRW 100 million as D was written in the opinion of the plaintiff to make an equity investment. The defendant sold the job, and then C borrowed KRW 200 million from the plaintiff under its responsibility, and the defendant also borrowed KRW 200 million from the plaintiff.