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. On or before March 8, 2017, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant several times, and on March 8, 2017, the balance of the loan as of March 8, 2017 remains 6,000,000 (hereinafter “existing loan”).
B. On March 8, 2017, when the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “new loan”), the Plaintiff added the existing loan and the new loan to KRW 11,00,000,000, and determined the due date for repayment as 2017, and was drafted by the Defendant with a loan certificate with no separate interest agreement (Evidence 1, 200, hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).
C. From April 27, 2017 to March 23, 2018, the fact that the Plaintiff received full repayment of the instant new loan from the Defendant does not conflict between the parties.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion made a loan of KRW 12,00,000 to the Defendant after the drawing up of the instant loan certificate, the Plaintiff’s total loan amounted to KRW 12,00,000.
However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,00,000,000, which is the total amount of the new loan of this case, from the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining balance of the loan and the delay damages.
B. We examine the determination as to the cause of the claim. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff extended additional KRW 1,00,000 to the defendant after the loan certificate of this case.
According to the above facts, the defendant's prior loans of this case 6,00,000 won, which are the remaining balance of loans, and 5% per annum under the Civil Act, from February 16, 2019 to June 21, 2019, which is the date when the original copy of the payment order of this case was delivered to the defendant as requested by the plaintiff, and it is clear that the defendant's dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation is reasonable as to the existence and scope of the obligation.