beta
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.01.09 2017가합101774

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 133,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from November 1, 2014 to January 9, 2019.

Reasons

Basic facts, around 2014, Defendant B prepared and provided to the Plaintiff a loan certificate with the following contents.

A loan certificate: approximately KRW 200 million shall be accurately calculated, and the resident number: the name of 000-00000: the above amount shall be borrowed from Defendant B by the end of October.

B. Defendant B was unable to repay by October 31, 2014, and around that time, prepared and issued a written confirmation of the following contents to the Plaintiff.

I, at the end of January 2015, undertake to pay in full the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff and pay in full the amount as at the end of February 2015, as at the end of February 2015, and not to pay in full the amount, I would like to substitute the amount with Defendant B B’s Shin.

(Defendant B’s New Franc D’s serial Number) The resident number of KRW 000,000 of the daily loan amount: Defendant C’s loan amount of KRW 000-000,000 on behalf of Defendant C until September 30, 2015.

The promise is to pay all the matters even if they are.

On April 23, 2015, Defendant C, the surety, drafted on April 23, 2015, a certificate of borrowing of the following contents:

From June 21, 2005 to November 17, 2015, Defendant B repaid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 139,400,000, as shown in the separate repayment statement.

[Ground for recognition: The plaintiff alleged that there is no dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3; the fact-finding reply to E bank; the purport of the whole pleadings; and the purport of the argument as to the claim against the defendant Eul ; on February 28, 2005, the plaintiff provided the defendant Eul with an insurance loan of KRW 60 million from F Co., Ltd. to G Co., Ltd., and KRW 10 million from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "G") and lent KRW 120 million in total; on September 28, 2009, the plaintiff paid KRW 42 million as the purchase of the building on land H (hereinafter "the building of this case"); however, the plaintiff was not entitled to transfer ownership of the building of this case.