2. C

2. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 906,500,000 and the amount calculated by the rate of 24% per annum from June 26, 2009 to the date of full payment.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendants are obligated to pay the above borrowed money and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff, even though they borrowed 5,00,000 bills from the Plaintiff from May 24, 2009 to November 25, 201.

2) The Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendants from time to time in addition to the borrowed money stated in the above paragraph (1) without having set the due date for payment. The amount claimed by the Defendants was paid in order to repay the aforementioned separate borrowed money.

B. Defendants 1) The instant lawsuit is unlawful since the Republic of Korea court’s international jurisdiction over the instant case is not acknowledged.

2) The 5,00,000 bills lent to the Defendants are not the Plaintiff but D, which is engaged in the bond business in China, and the Plaintiff is merely an employee of the bond company operated by D. Furthermore, the Defendants repaid all of the above borrowed money by way of remitting money to the deposit account designated by D. (3) Even if the Defendants lent the above 5,00,000 bills to the Defendants, even if they were to be the Plaintiff, the Defendants paid the above borrowed money in full by paying the money exceeding the above amount to the Plaintiff, etc. over several times thereafter.

2. Determination as to the defendants' main defense

A. Standard for determining international jurisdiction

Article 2(1) of the Private International Act provides, “The court shall have the international jurisdiction in case the party or the disputed case has substantial relations with the Republic of Korea. In this case, the court shall comply with reasonable principles consistent with the ideology of allocating international jurisdiction in determining the existence or absence of substantive relations.” In paragraph (2) of the same Article, the court shall determine the existence or absence of international jurisdiction in consideration of the provisions of domestic law, and shall take full account of the special nature of international jurisdiction in light of the purport of paragraph (1). The court shall determine international jurisdiction in accordance with the basic ideology of ensuring the appropriateness, appropriateness, prompt and economy of the parties as well as personal interests, such as equity, convenience, and predictability of the parties to the lawsuit, and the interests of the court or the State, such as the appropriateness, prompt, efficiency, and effectiveness of the judgment, as well as the interests of the parties to the lawsuit, should be considered together with the interests of the court or the State, and the issue of whether there is a need to protect any of these diverse interests shall be determined reasonably based on the objective relationship between the suspension of law and the parties’s

5. Supreme Court Decision 2006Da71908, 71915 Decided July 15, 2010, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da18355, Jul. 15, 2010)

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Gap evidence 14 through 17, Gap evidence 29, 31, 32, 37, Gap evidence 41 through 44, Gap evidence 46 through 51, Eul evidence 9 and 10 (including the branches number for which each number is not specified; hereinafter the same shall apply):

1) The Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea around 2014 to operate its business in the Republic of Korea, while residing in the Si of Yacheon-si, China, and engaged in the bond business. The Defendants were living in the Si of Yacheon-si, China and engaged in the real estate development business. (2) The Defendants were living in the Si of Masan-dong, China, and China.

A couple of nationality is a couple of nationality of a State.

3) The Plaintiff is running business in China from May 24, 2009 to November 25, 2011 while the Defendants were running business in China.

B. On January 18, 2014, the Defendants filed the instant lawsuit against the Jeju District Court of Korea against the Defendants on the following grounds: (a) on four occasions, the Defendants borrowed KRW 5,00,000 in total from the Plaintiff; and (b) thus, (c) the Defendants should pay the borrowed money.

4) The details of entry or departure based on the Republic of Korea from January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014 by the Defendants are as follows:

5) As of the time of filing the instant lawsuit, Defendant B purchased on March 12, 2013 and purchased on April 8, 2013 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on April 8, 2013, No. E00, 21, May 21, 2013, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on May 21, 2013, 000 DNA 43.0D vehicles, 3.2013

5. After purchasing 28. 28., Jeju City, Han-gu, Jeju-do, which completed the registration of ownership transfer, owned one building site and one building on its ground, and Defendant C had each deposit claim against FF Bank and GB Bank.

6) The Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order with respect to the Defendants’ real estate, vehicles, claims, etc. as stated in the Defendants’ Claim Claim No. 2013Kahap457, 2014Kahap57, 2014Kahap83, 2013Kadan273, 2014Kadan445, Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan7647, etc.

7) The Defendants, since entering the Republic of Korea around July 2013, entered the Republic of Korea, had been living in Jeju Special Self-Governing Province at the time of the instant lawsuit (Defendant C until July 23, 2013), and had been raising their children while living in Jeju Special Self-Governing Province.

The children of the Defendants are permitted to enter schools corresponding to the preparation process of HH International School Jeju Campus on February 14, 2014, and they are currently undergoing the above process.

8) On April 14, 2013, the Defendants acquired a visa from the tourist transit division (B-2) in one year of validity on April 14, 2013, and applied for a change of resident status on April 15, 2013 on the ground that they purchased real estate subject to investment under the investment immigration system, and acquired a visa (F-2) in two years of validity with his/her child. Unless there are special circumstances, the validity period is extended by three years after the lapse of the two-year period, and if he/she maintains the qualification of investors by holding the investment property until then, he/she acquires the permanent residence right on the date of five years. However, on the ground that the provisional attachment decision was rendered as to the property owned by the Defendant B, the visa grade of the said Defendant was adjusted downward, and the validity period of the said residence (F-2) was changed to the visa by March 30, 2015.

9) Defendant B: (a) around February 2015; (b) Defendant C left the Republic of Korea on July 23, 2013; and (c) currently heavy.

resident in the State.

C. Determination

As seen above, the court of China, which is most substantially related to the lawsuit in this case, seeking the payment of loans from the lending of money against the Defendants of Chinese nationality, is the Chinese court.

However, on the other hand, the following circumstances revealed by the above facts of recognition and evidence mentioned above, namely, ① after entering the Republic of Korea on March 12, 2013, Defendant B acquired real estate and a vehicle located in the Republic of Korea, and owned them. From around that time, until January 18, 2014, the filing date of the instant lawsuit, Defendant C actually resided in the said real estate while raising his or her child. Defendant C, as the husband of Defendant B, had resided in the Republic of Korea for a considerable period of time before leaving the Republic of Korea on July 23, 2013, was living together with the Defendant B and their children; ② the Defendants and their children entered the school in the Republic of Korea as the premise for acquiring sovereignty of the Republic of Korea; ③ The Defendants were unable to return to China due to the inevitable reasons behind the first entry into Korea, but it appears that the Defendants were not in the criminal case of the Republic of Korea since they were living in China at the time of departure prohibition, and it appears that it was difficult for the Defendants to return to China.

(5) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff entered the Republic of Korea before and after the filing of the instant lawsuit, and thereafter, the Plaintiff had a plan to conduct business activities in the Republic of Korea while residing in the Republic of Korea for a considerable period thereafter, it may be deemed that at least at the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit, the actual living basis of the Plaintiff or the Defendants was formed in the Republic of Korea. Therefore, the substantial relationship between the parties to the instant lawsuit and the Republic of Korea cannot be deemed to be denied.

In light of the above circumstances: ① it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, from the standpoint of the Defendants, after leaving China to avoid the dispute as seen earlier, was unable to expect that the Plaintiff would file the lawsuit of this case with the Korean court; ② under the circumstances where the Defendants’ property, such as real estate and vehicles, exists in the Republic of Korea and the Plaintiff’s provisional seizure of the above property, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have practical benefit in filing the lawsuit with the Korean court for effective enforcement of the claim; ③ it is difficult to easily dismiss the Plaintiff, who is a Chinese national, from the point of filing the lawsuit of this case by appointing the Plaintiff’s legal representative in the Republic of Korea; ④ The Plaintiff and the Defendants continued to present their arguments and verification activities regarding this case from the first instance to the appellate court for a long time, and the court of the Republic of Korea did not have any more specific authority to hear the legal issues of this case, and ④ it appears that the court of the Republic of Korea would have any more convenience in hearing and examination as to the international jurisdiction of this case, and thus, it appears that there is no sufficient evidence or evidence of this case.

It is judged that the international jurisdiction is recognized to be reasonable.

Therefore, the main defense of the Defendants is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Determination of the governing law

Article 26(1) and (2) of the Private International Act provides that "where the parties concerned have not selected the applicable law, a contract shall be governed by the law of the country most closely related to the contract. Where the parties concerned perform any of the following obligations under a contract, the law of the country in which their habitual residence is located (where the parties concerned are a corporation or organization, the law of the country in which their principal office is located) shall be presumed to be the most closely related thereto at the time of the conclusion of the contract: Provided, That where the contract is concluded by occupation or business activities of the parties, the law of the country in which the party concerned his/her business place is located shall be presumed to be the most closely related." Thus, Article 26(1) and (2) of the Private International Act provides that "in the case of a contract for use, the performance by the party who allows the use of the goods or rights in the case of a contract for use," the law of the Chinese law in which the plaintiff's habitual residence and the business place

B. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) According to the above evidence Nos. 8 through 11, Gap 43-2, Gap 60, 61, Gap 63 through 65, Gap 1's testimony, the results of the plaintiff 1's questioning and arguments, the plaintiff 1 operated a credit business by independently investing in and managing "KN LLC", the plaintiff 2 was allowed to use the above financial account under his name as well as the above 0-party financial account, M, and N 1's loan 5's loan 0. The plaintiff 1's loan 5's loan 2's loan 5's loan 00's loan 1's loan 5's loan 1's loan 1's loan 5's loan 2's loan 1's loan 1's loan 0', the above 0' loan 5' loan 1's loan 1's loan 1's loan 2', and the above 0-party loan 2's loan 1's loan 1'the above 0'.

C. Determination as to the defendants' defense of repayment

1) The Defendants, through their employees’ financial accounts, via P or Q’s financial accounts, on June 22, 2009.

The proposal of 60, 00, 12, 40 on June 24, 200, 6.6, 10 on August 6, 2009, 150 on August 7, 200, 9, 90, 100 on August 9, 7, 200, 70 on September 70, 200, 10 on September 70, 200, 10 on September 30, 30, 200 on September 5, 200, 10 on September 30, 200, 20 on September 15, 200, 20 on September 15, 200, 10 on September 10, 200, 20 on September 10, 200;

On the other hand, the Defendants, in addition to the instant payment, shall also be liable to the Plaintiff on August 12, 2009.

60, 00 (2) The above 1-6-1-6-6-6-1-6-6-6-1-6-6-1-6-6-1-6-1-6-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-3-2-3-4-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-3-4-2-3-2-3-4-2-1-3-3-3-4-3-4-20-3-3-4-20-3-3-3-4-20-3-3-3-3-4-201-3-3-3-3-3-10

In addition, the Defendants asserted that they paid each of the bills to the Plaintiff on September 4, 2009, 000 bills, 60, 000 bills on September 5, 2009, and 60,000 bills on September 13, 2009, and 60,000 bills on September 13, 200, but it is not sufficient to recognize the bills only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 5-24, 26, and 11-4 of the evidence Nos. 5-24, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

After all, the Defendants, from June 22, 2009 to November 11, 201, up to 14,509, and up to 120,00 + 12,400 + 90,00 + 150,00 + 90,00 + 700 + 30,000 + 150 + 100,000 + 100 + 100,000 + 20,000 + 1,357, 80 + 1,00 + 1,00 + 1,00 + 1,00 + 00 + 1,00 + 1,00 + 1,756, 920 + 3,000 + 00,000 + 0,000 of the total account, and 1,000.

The above facts and the aforementioned evidence are as follows. ① The separate financial transactions of this case include the remittance account and receipt account (the same name and account code or account number are the same with each other) used in the financial transactions, which are the premise for the debt of this case. ② As seen above, P/W is the employee of the Defendants, and V is the employee of Defendant B, and the Defendants are deemed to have used the financial account in their names, ③ there is no circumstance that P, W, and V separately from the Plaintiff. ④ If the payment of this case and the separate financial transactions of this case are compared with the date and amount of each item of the separate financial transactions of this case, the Defendants cannot be found to have used the financial account in their names. ④ If the amount of the funds of this case were transferred to the Defendants under the separate financial transactions of this case and the separate financial transactions of this case, and the amount of the funds of this case is considerably equal to the amount of the funds of this case, the Defendants already paid the funds of this case to the Plaintiff 15 times prior to the loan of this case.

In light of the fact that the payment of this case was not recovered even if it was recovered, it is difficult to view that the payment of this case was paid for the repayment of the loan of this case, and rather, it is reasonable to view that the payment of this case was made for the repayment of the loan of this case's loan of this case.

3) Ultimately, the Defendants’ defense that the instant loan obligation was repaid with the payment of the instant loan cannot be accepted ( Furthermore, since the total amount of the instant loan does not reach the principal of the loan obligation arising from the separate financial transaction of the instant case, it is difficult to appropriate the remainder after being appropriated for the repayment of the loan obligation due to the separate financial transaction of the instant loan, as it is the remainder after being appropriated for the repayment of the loan obligation due to the separate financial transaction of the instant loan).

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages at the rate of 24% per annum, which is the agreement rate from June 26, 2009 to the date of completion of payment, which is the rate of 500,000 won converted into the currency of the Republic of Korea according to the foreign exchange market rate as of June 8, 2015 ( = 5,00,000,000 won per annum x 181, 30 won per 181) and the interest or delay damages that the Plaintiff seeks, from June 26, 2009 to the date of completion of payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted for all reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by cancelling this and ordering the payment of the above money.

Judges Jeong-hee

Judges So-young

shall take place.