beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 49,700,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 6, 2016 to July 15, 2016.
Reasons
1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;
2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act applicable provisions of Acts.
3. Partial dismissal.
A. The plaintiff asserts that he lent each of the above amounts to the defendant by depositing KRW 150,00,000 to the account of C, and KRW 2,100,000 to the account of D. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff deposited each of the above amounts to the account of C and D with each of the above amounts to the defendant's request. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 1,200,000 and credit card payment of KRW 1,680,000 to the Defendant. However, the Plaintiff agreed to bear the Defendant’s purchase cost of the above campingco.
The plaintiff's above claim is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to pay the price by using the above credit card.
C. Although the Plaintiff additionally sought a loan of KRW 300,000, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 54,980,000 as a ground for the Plaintiff’s claim. However, it is apparent in calculating that the sum of all the amounts specified in Paragraph 2 as a ground for the claim is KRW 54,680,000 even if all the amounts specified in Paragraph 2 as a ground for the claim are added. Therefore, it is deemed that the Plaintiff additionally sought a loan of KRW 300,000, in addition to
Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the above loan to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s above claim is without merit.
The Plaintiff also sought interest calculated at the rate of 5% per annum on 49,700,000 won to the Defendant from May 9, 2005 to March 5, 2016, which is the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, from March 5, 2016. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to interest on the said loan, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.