beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from May 30, 2018 to January 9, 2019.
Reasons
1. Determination on the plaintiff's claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that, around June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 12 million to the Defendant from around June 19, 2007, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 12 million to the Defendant again. However, each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, this part of the claim is rejected.
B. On May 2, 2008, the claim for loan amounting to KRW 50 million stated in the loan certificate as of May 2, 2008, which is determined as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (the document of the loan certificate, the defendant's signature stated in the above document is presumed to have been made as a whole due to the lack of dispute between the parties concerned), Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the court's whole purport of pleadings as a result of the order to submit financial transaction information to Korea Post to Korea Post, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff extended money to the defendant from around 2005 to around 2008, to settle the loan amounting to KRW 50 million (Evidence No. 1) around May 22, 2008 (the defendant asserts that the document completed is not a document completed).
Although the interest and the maturity period of the above loan loan certificate are not specified, the defendant's signature is written on the loan certificate stating the date of preparation and the amount of the loan certificate. If the plaintiff's money remitted to the defendant's account under the name of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's wife from 2005 to 2008 shows that the money transferred to the plaintiff's account exceeds KRW 50 million, it can be sufficiently recognized.
(2) Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million and delay damages therefor. 2) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s loan obligation that was leased before May 22, 2018 has become extinctive prescription.
However, as seen above, the Defendant prepared a certificate of loan on May 22, 2018 and approved the existing loan obligations.