beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,800,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 11, 2012 to August 21, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to loan claims
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was paid KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant on June 3, 2010 and KRW 10,000,000 on June 7, 2010, and KRW 10,000 on August 14, 201. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the leased principal amount of KRW 22,00,000,000 and its delay damages. (2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant borrowed money from the Defendant other than the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
B. On June 3, 2010, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 12,00,000 as to the borrowed amount of KRW 10,000,000. On June 7, 2011, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 10,000 as to the borrowed amount of KRW 10,000 on August 14, 201, and the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 10,000 as to the borrowed amount of KRW 10,000 on the borrowed amount of KRW 14,00,00, and the fact that the Plaintiff is in custody of each of the above borrowed certificates may be recognized without dispute between the parties or by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as
As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, part of the evidence No. 5 cannot be trusted in light of the witness C’s testimony.
Meanwhile, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in the witness testimony, C loaned money to the Defendant and received all principal and interest from the Defendant, but upon the Plaintiff’s request, C received money from the Plaintiff and lent the money to the Defendant, and the interest was paid to C in cash, and C delivered the loan certificate and interest to C; and C did not at all indicate that the said money was the Plaintiff’s money during the above process, and it can be acknowledged that the said money was the Plaintiff’s money.
According to this, although C is the Plaintiff’s money, it is reasonable to view C and the Defendant as the parties to the monetary loan agreement.
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to do so.