beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s 5,00,000 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from December 11, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The part concerning Defendant C and E
A. On November 29, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to Defendant E as of May 29, 2013. On April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 3 million to Defendant E. (2) On May 4, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 3 million to Defendant C.
3) The Defendants did not pay the above borrowed money. B. The judgment of deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. Part as to Defendant B
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 5 million to Defendant B through F on November 3, 2012; and (b) returned KRW 650,000 each month until August 3, 2013; (c) was issued with a letter of borrowing signed by B; (d) the Plaintiff was not paid the said loan; and (e) the Plaintiff’s assertion by Defendant B was entirely the Plaintiff.
Defendant B, upon the request of Defendant E, borrowed KRW 5 million from F to prepare a loan certificate in the name of Defendant B, and deposited money to Defendant B’s account was KRW 4,350,000 excluding advance interest and KRW 6,50,000,000,000,000 out of the above money, to Defendant E.
Defendant E intended to pay the above money.
B. Determination 1) Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. The interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning given by the party to the contract to the act of expression, and in cases where a written document is prepared between the parties as a disposal document, it shall not be cited in the phrase used in the document, but shall reasonably interpret the objective meaning given by the party to the act of expression according to the written document, regardless of the party’s internal intent. In such cases, barring any special circumstance, unless the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be acknowledged (see Supreme Court Decision 200 May 13, 2010