(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.10.30 2014가단43284

beta

대여금

Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant D, jointly and severally with Defendant B, KRW 30,000,000, and each of them.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that on August 15, 2006, the defendant C lent KRW 20 million to the defendant C through E, who is the knife, to 2% per month interest, and that E has jointly and severally guaranteed this.

The Plaintiff, as evidence consistent with this, submitted A’s certificate of borrowing KRW 1, which was stamped by Defendant C’s seal.

Defendant C asserts that his design is nothing more than the sending of E at his own discretion.

Although the seal affixed on the Defendant C’s seal imprint which is confirmed by the certificate of the personal seal impression Nos. 6 and the above loan certificate are similar, it is difficult to recognize the above loan certificate as the Defendant C’s seal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize the above lending by the statement Gap 6 alone, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is without merit.

2. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff lent to E the amount of KRW 20 million on November 30, 2006, KRW 10 million on January 19, 2007, KRW 2% on each month, and the Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed it, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million on January 28, 2010 to the Defendant D, who is the birth of the birth of the birth of the birth of the wife of the wife of the wife of the wife of the wife of the wife of the wife of the wife of the wife of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party of the Party, and the joint and several surety of the Plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19350, Nov. 30, 2006>

Defendant B asserted that Defendant B repaid most of the above borrowed amounts of KRW 20 million and KRW 10 million, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

In addition, Defendant D asserted that Defendant D repaid the loan of KRW 30 million with money sold apartment around April 20, 2010, but it is insufficient to recognize this only with the party’s personal examination results as to B, 3, and 5 and E.

Therefore, Defendant B is worth KRW 60 million, Defendant D is jointly and severally with Defendant B, and the amount is KRW 30 million.