beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The following facts may be acknowledged according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A and 3, and there is no reflective evidence.
① On August 5, 2017, the payment order (Seoul Central District Court 2017 tea35203; hereinafter “instant payment order”) was finalized on the following grounds: “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 30 million won and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 1, 2015 to the date of full payment.”
The cause of the claim for a payment order is that “the Plaintiff entered into a profit-sharing contract with D on April 14, 2015, and paid D KRW 30 million on December 31, 2015 and February 28, 2016, respectively, and it did not receive a refund of KRW 30 million among them.”
② On January 19, 2018, the Plaintiff obtained a decision to seize and collect (Seoul Western District 2018 Taz. 260, Seoul Western District 2018 Taz. 260, Jan. 22, 2018, each of the loan claims of KRW 21,567,00 against the Defendants of D (the principal amount of KRW 15 million, calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 1, 2015 to January 8, 2018) with the title to execute the instant payment order. The said collection order was served on the Defendants on January 22, 2018.
The Plaintiff asserts that D, on April 14, 2015, lent KRW 15 million to the Defendants, and D, respectively, has a claim for the principal and interest of KRW 21,567,00 to the Defendants, and the Plaintiff received a collection order for the said claim. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay KRW 21,567,00 to the Plaintiff.
According to Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff transferred 15 million won to the defendants' account on April 14, 2015.
However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendants are in charge of D’s children, and D is able to recognize the fact that they used the Defendants’ account when they receive the transfer of investment funds from the Plaintiff. Thus, the facts that are recognized earlier are insufficient to recognize that D lent KRW 15 million to the Defendants on April 14, 2015, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.
The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is with merit.