beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.25 2018가합517938

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's additional application against C is rejected.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) 121,250,000 won and its corresponding;

Reasons

Basic Facts

D from around 1999 to August 30, 2005, borrowed money from Defendant E through Defendant E and used it as business funds of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

When the above loan amounts have been accumulated considerably, on August 30, 2005, Defendant B and D prepared and delivered the following loan certificates upon the request of the Plaintiff and E (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”), and the following KRW 485 million (hereinafter “the loan of this case”).

BD E on February 7, 2018, a borrower, who confirmed that the above amount was borrowed by August 30, 2005 on the day of the loan certificate, and agreed to repay the above amount by December 30, 2007, and prepared this loan certificate (the interest rate shall be paid in 500,000 won at the end of each month).

D The spouse was Defendant B and his children G and C, but on April 4, 2018, G and C were judged to waive inheritance by the Gwangju Family Court as 2018 was decided to waive inheritance, and Defendant B was tried to accept the qualified acceptance of inheritance by 2018Ja426.

After that, Defendant B took over the instant litigation procedure.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 8, and the defendant's additional application Nos. 3, 7, and 8 to the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff stated a preparatory document on April 4, 2018 on the date of the first pleading of the instant case, thereby asserting that Eul should pay for the loans of this case, as C used, and added a claim for payment of KRW 70 million to C and interest thereon. This is premised on the premise that C is added to the defendant, and thus, it is determined as the defendant's additional application.

The defendant's change is an essential co-litigants (see Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Act) or a conjunctive co-litigants (see Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act), or where it is obvious that the plaintiff erroneously designated the defendant, Article 260 of the Civil Procedure Act.