beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,317,296 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 10, 2019 to June 25, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff lent KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant on July 23, 2014, and KRW 10,000,000 on August 18, 2014, and the amount borrowed from the Defendant on April 19, 2015 is set at KRW 29,00,000 per month, and the interest is to be paid KRW 800,00 per month. However, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate to repay KRW 10,00,00 by the end of August 2015 and by the end of April 2016.
B. From April 21, 2015 to November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff wired KRW 17,600,000 to the Defendant’s account from the new bank account. From June 10, 2015 to December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff wired KRW 44,30,000 to the Defendant’s account from the Defendant’s bank account.
C. From May 19, 2015 to September 27, 2016, the Defendant remitted KRW 33,326,500 to the Plaintiff’s new bank account. From November 1, 2016 to October 7, 2018, the Defendant remitted KRW 21,150,000 to the Plaintiff’s national bank account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff, upon receiving a loan certificate from the Defendant on April 19, 2015, agreed to receive interest of KRW 800,000 per month for the loan amounting to KRW 29,00,000,000 per month, and thus, the Plaintiff sought a loan of KRW 65,624,00,000, which is the sum of KRW 51,476,000, which was remitted to the Defendant by the Plaintiff from KRW 81,90,00,00 for 444 months until the time of filing the instant lawsuit, and KRW 51,476,00,00, which was remitted to the Plaintiff by the Defendant.
In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the amount transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant was transferred to the Defendant for a partnership business between the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s husband C, and that the amount of interest exceeding 25% per annum under the Interest Limitation Act should be null and void, and that the Defendant and C should bear 1/2 each of the remaining loans.
B. The following facts are recognized based on the facts as to whether a loan constitutes one borrowed loan and the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements Nos. 3 and 4.