beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From December 28, 2005 to December 19, 2006, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 196,80,000 to the Defendant on 111 occasions as indicated in the following table.
The remittance date of December 28, 2005 KRW 4,00,000 on March 6, 2006, KRW 30,000 on March 10, 2006, KRW 5,000,000 on March 23, 2006; and KRW 50,000,000 on April 12, 2006; KRW 30,000 on April 27, 2006; KRW 10,000 on July 25, 2006; KRW 10,000,000 on August 20, 200; KRW 10,50,000 on KRW 10,00 on November 20, 200, KRW 50,000 on KRW 10,50,000 on KRW 10,000 on March 10, 2006; and
B. On December 20, 2006, the Defendant drawn up and delivered to the Plaintiff a certificate of borrowing “I, with the condition that I wished to confirm the above amount to the Plaintiff at KRW 25,000,000 per day” (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowing”).
C. After that, the Plaintiff remitted 6,500,000 won to the Defendant on February 5, 2007, and 5,000,000 won to February 14, 2007.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) since the defendant borrowed a total of KRW 236,50,000 from the plaintiff and paid only KRW 30,000 to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining loan amount of KRW 206,50,000 and delay delay damages to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's claim that the plaintiff transferred the money to the defendant by the defendant to the defendant on November 1, 2005 is about KRW 5,00 of the shares purchase amount of KRW 450,00 or KRW 450,000 of the shares purchase amount of KRW 4,50,000 when the plaintiff purchased the shares from the defendant on November 1, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "di Ssty Tech"), and the amount transferred as investment amount of KRW 116,00,000 and transferred to Esty Tech, and the loan certificate of this case is merely the one that the defendant actually borrowed from the plaintiff upon the plaintiff's request.
B. The interpretation of one declaration of intention to determine is a party.