대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. According to the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2-2 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff loaned monthly interest of KRW 30 million to the co-defendant C of the first instance trial on June 10, 2010, and KRW 50 million on October 22, 10 of the same year (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the co-defendant C without setting the due date.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant D Co., Ltd. is a de facto one company whose stocks are almost 100% of that company, and thus, C is responsible for the repayment of the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff.
(2) According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, even if Defendant D Co., Ltd. is a single-person holding the entire shares, it cannot be deemed that Defendant D Co., Ltd. should pay the instant loan borrowed by Defendant D solely for that reason. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted without need to further examine whether Defendant D’s entire shares were owned by Defendant C.
B. (1) Determination as to the claim against Defendant B (A) The Plaintiff’s principal claim was not only borrowed by Defendant B, but also the Defendant B promised to pay the instant loan if C is unable to repay the instant loan. As such, Defendant B is liable for the repayment of the instant loan to the Plaintiff.
(B) However, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness E of the first instance court, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s above assertion, is hard to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, 6, 7, and evidence No. 8-1, 2, and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.
(2) Determination on the conjunctive claim (A) Defendant B’s assertion that the Plaintiff made the instant loan from the Plaintiff.