대여금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s mother, at around 2005, lent KRW 200 million to the Defendants upon the request of the Defendants to lend money for the clothing distribution business. Afterwards, the Plaintiff, D, and Defendants agreed to jointly and severally repay the above loan obligation to the Plaintiff after transferring the loan claim amounting to KRW 200 million to the Defendants to the Plaintiff through a three-party agreement. The Plaintiff was issued with a notarized promissory note jointly signed by the Defendants on September 5, 2005, and the Defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay damages for delay from September 6, 2006, which is the day following the maturity date of the promissory note.
In full view of the statements in Gap evidence No. 1 and witness Eul's testimony, the defendants jointly issued a promissory note with a face value of 200,000,000,000, which is payable at sight on September 5, 2005 to the plaintiff on September 5, 2005. In the event of delay in the payment of the said promissory note on the same day, a notary public is aware that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution, even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution, the fact that Eul lent 20,000,000 won to the defendants, or that D lent 200,000,000,000 won to the defendants, or that the defendants informed the defendants of the transfer of the above credit to the defendants, or there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.