beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B’s KRW 60,000,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from October 5, 2018 to July 15, 2020.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B was an executive of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and Defendant C was an employee of D, respectively, and the Plaintiff was a customer of D.
B. On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff, the Defendants, and E jointly purchased a 2,086 square meters of G1,043 square meters (hereinafter “F land”) from the said land prior to the subdivision on April 21, 2016, and decided to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant C. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer for F land was filed on the same day in the name of Defendant C on September 4, 2015.
C. On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued and delivered a loan certificate stating that “I will repay KRW 60,000,000 on October 8, 2015” (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with respect to F’s own investment amount of KRW 60,00,000.
After that, on May 11, 2016, the F land was sold to H and I, and on April 5, 2016, the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of H with respect to the said G land, and on April 5, 2016 in the name of I with respect to the said G land.
E. In Jeju-si, J land is not more than 2,392m2 J land.
(D) An application for ownership transfer was filed under D’s name. On July 25, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer was filed under the Plaintiff’s name on June 27, 2016 with respect to the portion 661/2,392 out of the said date on July 25, 2016. [Ground for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, the entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 3-2, and Eul evidence 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the content of the statement, so long as the judgment on the cause of claim 1 as to the portion of the claim based on the loan certificate in this case is deemed to be authentic.