beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 57,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 25% per annum from March 31, 2015 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion argues that, from August 25, 2014 to October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 57 million to Nonparty C in total on three occasions, but C failed to pay that amount and demanded a guarantor or a security. Accordingly, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate (No. 1) equivalent to KRW 67 million in consideration of interest, etc. and provided a mortgage on the real estate owned by the Defendant, and the Defendant established a mortgage on the real estate owned by the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant who assumed the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Plaintiff was liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 57 million and delay damages therefrom.
The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the original Defendant has a claim for loans of KRW 52 million and KRW 57 million in total. However, the Plaintiff changed the cause of the claim through a preparatory document dated October 21, 2015. As such, it is determined according to the changed cause of the claim.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 through 4, the Plaintiff’s statement to Nonparty C as to August 25, 2014, 15 million won, and the same year
9. The loan certificate of KRW 20,300,000 and KRW 57,00,000,000 on October 30 of the same year was made to the Plaintiff on November 18, 2014 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”), stating that “67,00,000 won shall be repaid until March 30, 2015 and the interest of KRW 5,000 per month shall be paid on March 30, 2015,” and on the same day, “the right to collateral security of KRW 67,00,000,000 shall be the right to collateral security of KRW 67,00,000 for KRW D and two parcels owned by the Defendant on the same day.”
It can be recognized that the facts established in the name of the plaintiff Eul were established in the name of the plaintiff, and the defendant does not explicitly state that the loan certificate of this case was prepared regardless of C, and there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant that there was no actual money mistake between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, if it is not for the purpose of guaranteeing the debt of the plaintiff Eul against the plaintiff, it is not for securing the debt of the plaintiff.