beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 230,215,30 among the Plaintiff and KRW 199,192,220 among the Plaintiff, shall be KRW 31,023,110 from September 23, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are between high school and high school to the recent years.
B. From around July 2004 to around July 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant without paying interest on several occasions, and repeated repayment.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 14 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleading
2. The parties' assertion
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was from around July 2004 to around July 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 374,069,50 in total from the Defendant by either paying the Defendant’s credit card or receiving the payment from the credit card company. At the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff’s payment made to the Defendant for the repayment of the borrowed amount was KRW 604,884,8830 in excess of the borrowed amount. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment the amount of KRW 604,884,830 in total and KRW 374,069,50 in total and KRW 374,830 in total and KRW 374,00 in borrowed amount (=604,884,830 in total - KRW 374,069,50 in total) and delay damages therefrom.
B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion: (a) in addition to the account transfer, credit card payment method as claimed by the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant directly lent cash financed with credit card cash services, long-term card loans; and (c) the Defendant’s prompt name using the Defendant’s credit card to the Plaintiff by granting the Defendant’s credit card to the Plaintiff and allowing the Plaintiff to use it for necessary purposes; and (d) the total amount of the above loan would be KRW 602,959,514; and (e) in consideration of overdue interests in cash services, long-term credit card loans, etc., the amount paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant cannot be said to
② In addition, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case against the Defendant, which had been economically difficult for the past 13 years, ought to be rejected against the good faith principle, by doing so.