대여금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination as to claims against Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G
A. From June 26, 2012 to January 22, 2013, Plaintiff 1) lent KRW 6,000,000 to Defendant B, Defendant C, E, and F, respectively, KRW 15,00,000, and KRW 10,000,00 each, to Defendant D, and G, respectively, by either directly or through the I’s account. Therefore, the said Defendants are liable to pay to the Plaintiff each amount indicated in the Plaintiff’s claim and the damages for delay thereof. (2) The said Defendants were not aware of the Plaintiff and did not borrow money from the Plaintiff.
B. The facts that Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G have borrowed each of the funds stated in the purport of the claim from the Plaintiff through the introduction by the J, and each of the aforementioned facts confirmations was submitted in the appellate court for a criminal case (U.S. District Court 2016Da1882, Suwon District Court 2016No4762, Supreme Court 2016Do17282, hereinafter “relevant criminal case”) against which the J was prosecuted for the crime of fraud are not disputed between the Plaintiff and the said Defendants.
However, the following circumstances, which can be revealed by Eul's overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraph 1-1 through 5, namely, ① part of the facts charged in the relevant criminal case, by deceiving the plaintiff and deceiving the plaintiff 1,4930,000 won including the money stated in the purport of the claim in the loan loan. The plaintiff testified in the first instance court related criminal case that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 1,493,000 won to J, ② the court of first instance sentenced the judgment of conviction of one year against J due to the above facts constituting the crime in the above fraud, and the above judgment became final and conclusive, ③ the court of first instance introduced the plaintiff and the above defendants in the related criminal case, and the plaintiff did not directly receive the plaintiff as a party to the money borrowing, and thus this part of the money should be deducted from the amount of fraud.