beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 44,591,299 against the Plaintiff and its related KRW 61,847,850 from September 1, 2017, as well as the Plaintiff’s March 1, 2016.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff lent money to Defendant B several times, and had the Plaintiff use the credit card in the name of the Plaintiff.
B. On January 21, 2015, Defendant B prepared a loan certificate (hereinafter “the first loan certificate”) stating that “The Plaintiff had an obligation relationship with the Plaintiff for personal purposes from May 2013, and failed to perform the promise from May 2013 while repaying the principal and interest.” The Defendant confirmed that the obligation of KRW 44,836,090 was owed, and promised to repay by January 30, 2013” (hereinafter “the first loan certificate”). C. On February 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was related to the Plaintiff’s obligation with the personal purpose from May 2013; and (b) was unable to perform the promise from May 2013 when the principal and interest were repaid; (c) confirmed that the remainder of the settlement amount was 61,847,850 won, and (d) promised to repay the loan by May 2016 (hereinafter “the second loan certificate”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Claim against the defendant B
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the liability of KRW 106,683,940 due to the second loan and the delay damages therefrom, barring any special circumstance.
B. Defendant B’s assertion of error in amount 1) asserts that, since the Plaintiff’s actual loan amount of KRW 70,00,000 to Defendant B is KRW 24,836,090 and the card amount of Defendant B used by Defendant B is KRW 24,836,090, Defendant B’s total debt to Defendant B is the amount of KRW 94,836,090. However, Defendant B’s failure to properly confirm under the circumstances where the settlement amount of the second loan certificate is not sufficient (the amount of the first loan certificate is recognized. The above argument is revoked because the declaration of intention based on the second loan certificate was made by mistake.