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. Basic facts
A. On April 9, 2007, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 150 million to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on May 9, 2007, setting the due date as set by May 9, 2007.
B. On April 10, 2010, Defendant Company paid KRW 80 million out of the above borrowed money to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant Company, on December 13, 2012, jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to repay the borrowed amount of KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2013, written non-performance of the borrowed amount (the first sheet) to the effect that the Plaintiff would repay the borrowed amount of KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2013.
C. After that, on December 24, 2013, Defendant C drafted and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of non-performance of the balance of the re-loan (II) to the effect that the said loan will be repaid by December 30, 2015.
In addition, the Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiff KRW 5 million out of the above loan amounting to KRW 70 million.
E. On the other hand, on July 11, 2012, the Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohap105 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”) commenced rehabilitation proceedings against the Defendant Company, and Defendant C was appointed as a custodian.
After March 27, 2013, there was a decision to authorize the rehabilitation plan, and the rehabilitation procedure was completed on April 7, 2016.
F. The Plaintiff did not report his claim in the instant rehabilitation procedure, and the Defendants did not enter the Plaintiff’s claim in the list of creditors in the said rehabilitation procedure.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not state the Plaintiff’s claim in the list of rehabilitation creditors and notify the Plaintiff of the situation where the rehabilitation procedure is in progress, and the Defendants deceptiond the Plaintiff by preparing and delivering two times a letter of non-performance of the balance of the borrowed amount to the effect that the Plaintiff would repay the remainder of the borrowed amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did so.