beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단6465

대여금

Text

1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40 million and the interest rate of KRW 15 percent per annum from August 24, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 34,800,000 to the Defendant C’s account known by Defendant B upon receiving a request to lend KRW 40,000,000 from Defendant B.

(No. 1, 2). (B) A has no dispute.

Since then, Defendant B drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of loan to the effect that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 40 million up to December 30, 2015.

The loan certificate includes only the defendant B as the debtor.

(A) Evidence No. 3). 【Ground for Recognition】 without any dispute, A’s evidence No. 1 through 3

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 40 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 24, 2016 to the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. The above facts are the same as the facts acknowledged earlier that the person who requested the lending of the above KRW 40,000,000 to Defendant C was Defendant B, and the loan certificate also contains only the name of Defendant B as the debtor. In light of these circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C, which is merely the nominal owner of the account number that Defendant B requested the remittance, is the party who borrowed the above KRW 40,000 from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is without merit.

3. Defendant B’s assertion and judgment

A. Defendant B, around October 2014, engaged in a trade name “D” with the Plaintiff and operated the store. Defendant B, after investing KRW 60,000,000, the name of the store was left in the future E, the Plaintiff’s wife, and the actual operation of the store was carried out by the Defendant.

However, the plaintiff and the defendant will arrange the outstanding amount of the price of the goods when operating the store, as the price of the goods is accumulated and the deficit begins.