beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff and the defendant were in de facto marital relationship with the defendant, and the defendant requested the plaintiff to lend funds for employment of the sewage agricultural cooperative of C, his/her dependent, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from D on March 27, 2015, KRW 10 million from E on April 27, 2015, KRW 10 million from E on June 27, 2015, and KRW 10 million from F on June 27, 2015, respectively, and lent each of the above loans to the defendant at a rate of one year from the date of lending and interest rate of 2% per month on the same day (hereinafter collectively referred to as "first loan").
(2) However, the Defendant directly repaid KRW 10 million to D on July 11, 2016, and KRW 10 million to E on July 13, 2016, but did not pay the remainder principal amounting to KRW 10 million and delay damages. (2) In addition, upon the Defendant’s request for monetary loan, the Plaintiff received benefits from G, the Plaintiff’s employer, and lent KRW 7 million (hereinafter “second loan”), and the Defendant did not pay the loan up to the date.
3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest and delay damages of KRW 11,400,000 on the leased principal (i.e., the interest and delay damages of KRW 17,00,000 on or before October 26, 2016) and the interest and delay damages of KRW 10,000 on the leased principal stated in the above A. (ii) The Defendant’s assertion 1) with respect to the first loan, with respect to the Plaintiff’s first loan, the amount of KRW 10,00,000 on December 10, 2015 and KRW 1,00,000 on December 27, 2015, and KRW 1,000 on May 15, 2016, which was paid by the Plaintiff for the maintenance of de facto marital relationship with the Defendant, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff merely lent it from the Plaintiff.
Since then, the Plaintiff demanded that the said money be repaid on behalf of the said money lent from D and E, and the repayment was made accordingly, and the remainder of KRW 10 million was actually used by the Plaintiff.
2. 2.