beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 39,220,00 to the Plaintiff the annual interest rate of KRW 15% from September 14, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From October 15, 2012 to August 24, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 143,100,000 to the account under the name of the Defendant (the father of the Plaintiff’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s wife’s husband’s wife’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s transfer of KRW 2,90,000 to the account under the name of D on April 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant loan”).
B. From October 30, 2012 to June 20, 2014, the sum of KRW 106,780,000 was remitted from the account in the name of the Plaintiff to the account in the name of the Plaintiff.
C. On the other hand, on April 3, 2012, the Defendant registered the business of manufacturing ancillary facilities with the trade name “F” as its representative, and closed the business on December 31, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5, 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant lent KRW 146,00,000 to the defendant as business funds, and only KRW 106,780,000 to the defendant was paid. Thus, the defendant sought payment of the remaining KRW 39,220,00 to the defendant. Even if the defendant is the nominal holder, the plaintiff did not have gross negligence, and therefore, the defendant is liable as the nominal holder under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant's father E, who registered the business in the name of the defendant, borrowed the loan from D as operating funds of "F", not the plaintiff.
B. As seen earlier prior to the confirmation of the party to the instant monetary transaction, the instant loan was remitted from the account held in the Plaintiff’s name, and the Defendant’s father E stated that “D shall pay money to the Plaintiff with the use of the Plaintiff’s account because it did not have the right to make a decision on money (No. 22 and No. 13)” by the investigation agency (No. 22, No. 13) is reasonable to deem
Next, as to whether the borrower of the loan of this case is the defendant, each entry of Eul Nos. 7, 8, 11 through 21 (including serial numbers) is written.