beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 177,281,421 as well as 10% per annum from December 31, 2012 to January 13, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B lent KRW 260,00,000 in total on two occasions to Defendant B asked for a loan necessary for the new construction of a building. However, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that it had not yet been paid part of the above loan, and sought payment of the remaining loan and interest or delay damages thereon against Defendant B.
As to this, Defendant B asserts to the effect that the above KRW 10,000,000 paid on February 23, 2009 is not a loan but a settlement amount of 575 square meters in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.
B. Where it is reasonable to view that, with respect to a juristic act to which an additional officer attached with respect to the cause of the claim, if the facts indicated in the additional officer do not occur, the additional officer’s failure to perform the obligation should be subject to the condition, but where it is reasonable to view that the obligation should be performed even if not only the indicated facts but also the opposite facts have been confirmed, it shall be deemed that the existence of the indicated facts has been determined by an indefinite time limit. If the facts indicated in the additional officer were to occur, or if it is impossible to occur within a reasonable time limit, or if such facts do not occur within
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da24215 Decided August 19, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2009Da16643 Decided May 14, 2009, etc.) According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments stated and written evidence Nos. 1, 3, 1, 3, 1 through 3, and 5 (including paper numbers) as follows: (a) on April 22, 2008, the Plaintiff stated “10% per annum” to Defendant B; and (b) on the loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) on the purchase and sale of eight parcels outside Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, the due date for payment, and eight parcels, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff would have made payment at the latest until the sale of the above eight parcels is made.”