대여금
1. Defendant A Co., Ltd. shall pay KRW 53,00,000 to the Plaintiff as well as its annual period from October 1, 2014 to May 22, 2015.
1. On September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 103,00,000 to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”). At the time of the said loan (hereinafter “instant loan”), the Plaintiff paid the loan by means of remitting it to the bank account in the name of Defendant B, the representative director of the Defendant Company C, to the bank account in the name of Defendant B.
Afterward, the Defendant Company repaid the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 on October 28, 2014, and KRW 10,000,000 on February 17, 2015, totaling KRW 50,000,000, and both parties determined the repayment period of the instant loan as of September 30, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including above number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserted that, since the lender of the instant loan is not the Defendant Company but the Defendant Company, Defendant B is obligated to repay the loan to the Plaintiff. If it is not so, Defendant B made unjust enrichment of the instant loan, and thus, it should be returned to the Plaintiff.
On the other hand, the facts that the borrower of the instant loan was the Defendant Company are as seen earlier, and based on the evidence revealed earlier, Defendant B only lent the instant loan to its own bank account at the request of the Defendant Company, but does not seem to have used the instant loan. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that Defendant B obtained benefits by using the instant loan without any legal ground.
Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendant B cannot be accepted.
3. Claim against the defendant company
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the primary claim is the primary claim that the Defendant Company concurrently acquired the obligation to return the loan of this case on the premise that Defendant B is the primary obligor to return the loan of this case.
As seen earlier, Defendant B cannot be deemed as the obligor to return the instant loan, and the Defendant Company concurrently assumed the said obligation.