대여금
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant D’s KRW 30,000,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from October 23, 2015 to March 29, 2016.
1. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B and D: (a) borrowed KRW 50 million on October 22, 2015; (b) KRW 30 million on October 26, 2015; and (c) agreed to pay 5% interest per annum on the following day of the borrowing date; (b) Defendant B agreed to pay KRW 30 million on October 26, 2015; (c) Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to pay KRW 18 million on December 31, 2015; (d) Defendant D’s repayment of KRW 30 million on October 25, 2016; and (e) Defendant D’s repayment of KRW 100 million on March 10, 2015; and (e) Defendant D’s repayment of KRW 30 million on December 16, 2005; and (e) Defendant D’s repayment of KRW 160 million on March 25, 2016.
Therefore, Defendant B and D are obliged to pay the Plaintiff money as stated in the text.
2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion transferred money to Defendant D with Defendant C’s bank account by lending KRW 50 million to Defendant D on October 22, 2015. Since Defendant C lent the name of the passbook to facilitate Defendant D’s defraudation of money, Defendant C is a person who aided and abetted Defendant D’s money by lending the name of the passbook. Therefore, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant D to pay money to the Plaintiff.
(1) The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C is liable for the repayment of money to Defendant C, the account holder of the passbook, because Defendant C would be jointly and severally liable with the account holder that received money in borrowing money. However, if the Plaintiff did not agree with Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s answer that the Plaintiff’s assertion itself does not have any legal ground, and the cause of the said claim is withdrawn, and thus, it does not constitute a separate judgment).
Judgment
It is difficult to recognize that Defendant D acquired money by the Plaintiff only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and that Defendant C aided and aided Defendant D’s defraudation.
According to the statement No. 1 B B, Defendant C can find the fact that the company operated by Defendant D was employed in the accounting and work as the company's business. Thus, the head of the company's accounting passbook is not required to be used in the company's business.