beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant C, KRW 50,000,00, and Defendant D, KRW 45,000,000, and each of the above amounts.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a leading state with the name “E” operated.
B. On October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 34,500,000 to Defendant B, and KRW 34,50,000,000, respectively, from the account in the name of the F (the Plaintiff’s father), which is the accounts for the payment of the accounts of “E” to Defendant C. On October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 33,300,000,000 to Defendant C on October 24, 2016 and KRW 5,00,000 on October 24, 2016.
(c)
On October 20, 2016, the Defendants issued each promissory note of KRW 50,00,000 at the face value with the Plaintiff as the addressee, and a notary public drafted a promissory note of KRW 549,550,551 at the law firm G.
【Unfounded Grounds for Recognition】 Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, and 13 evidence (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. On October 20, 2016, the Defendants agreed to pay KRW 50 million each month with the payment of KRW 50 million each month in the presence of the “E” fraternity. The Defendants issued a promissory note to secure the payment of the said fraternity and received the remainder of the money obtained by deducting interest, food, etc. from the payment.
Nevertheless, Defendant B paid only KRW 20,000,00 and KRW 5,000,000 to Defendant D, and did not pay the remainder. Accordingly, the Defendants are entitled to selective payment of the subscription money or promissory note.
B. Defendant B, D Defendant B, and D are admitted to the “I” fraternity in which H is a leader, and received KRW 34,500,000 from the said fraternity, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff was admitted to the “E” fraternity in which H is a leader.
H was liable to Defendant B and D, but H was admitted to the “I” fraternity and paid only some of the entire accounts, the remainder will be borne by oneself.
Therefore, the Defendants subscribed to the “I” system, received the payment as a repayment for the existing obligation, and made a promissory note as a receipt for the receipt of the fraternity, and the Defendants did not pay the fraternity. Therefore, the underlying claim of a promissory note is not the same.