대여금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 160,000,00 and Defendant B from April 3, 2015 to Defendant C.
As to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the principal to Defendant B for three years, and the Plaintiff lent each of the loans of KRW 25,000,000 on July 29, 2009, and KRW 135,000,000 on August 12, 2009 to the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, as there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 160,000 (= 25,000,000,000) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, sought by the Plaintiff from April 3, 2015 to the day of full payment.
The Defendants are married with each other, and the Plaintiff is a partner of Defendant B.
After Defendant C retired from the workplace in 2008, Defendant B prepared convenience store business. Upon Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff lent KRW 25,000,000 on July 29, 2009 and KRW 135,000,000 on August 12, 2009 to Defendant B as seen above as convenience store business funds.
On July 29, 2009, Defendant B entered into a franchise agreement and registered the business under its own name (hereinafter “instant convenience store”). Around August 15, 2009, Defendant B paid the instant convenience store deposit, premium, etc. with the money borrowed from the Plaintiff.
Defendant C operated the convenience store in this case with Defendant B, and Defendant C left the dispute with Defendant C. Even after the completion of the instant convenience store franchise agreement, Defendant C continues to operate the convenience store solely with Defendant B’s business registration in the same place.
【Partial grounds for recognition】 In the reply dated January 12, 2015, Defendant C led Defendant C to a confession that the Plaintiff lent KRW 160,000,000 to Defendant B in the said reply, but Defendant C had the possibility of a claim and debt case between the Plaintiff and Defendant B in the said reply.
(160,000,000 won). Among them, Defendant B requested the Plaintiff to help it by telephone.