beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 21,50,000 and KRW 11,500,000 among them, from May 20, 2008, and KRW 10,000,00.
Reasons
1. According to the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10 as to the cause of the claim and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant purchased a limit (one million won per month) organized by the plaintiff as a leading owner on August 20, 2007 and did not pay a total of 16,00,000 won per 16,00,000 won from April 2008 to September 26, 2007, even if the plaintiff was paid a limit of 1,00,000 won on September 26, 2007. The plaintiff lent a total of 16,00,000 won to the defendant on August 30, 2007, respectively.
Meanwhile, around May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff was a person who received KRW 4,500,000 from the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 21,50,000 won (i.e., 11,500,000 won loan out of 11,50,000 won) and 11,50,000 won out of the loan balance (i.e., 11,50,000 won loan out of 11,50,000 won), which the Plaintiff seeks from May 208, 2008, 10,000 won after the due date, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 30, 2008 to July 28, 2014, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under 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 argues to the effect that all of the Defendant’s loans and obligations against the Plaintiff were extinguished since the Plaintiff agreed to settle the Plaintiff’s loans and obligations against the Defendant’s above loans and obligations against the Defendant at KRW 4,500,00, and the Plaintiff paid the said money to the Plaintiff around May 21, 2012.
It is not sufficient to recognize that the statement in Eul evidence No. 1 alone made an agreement between the original and the defendant to settle the above loans and the balance of the accounts at KRW 4,500,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.