beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s amounting to KRW 95,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 10, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Claim against the defendant B
(a) As shown in the annexed sheet for indicating the claim;
(However, the starting point of starting damages for delay was corrected from the next day of the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case).
Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (No. 100 million won judgment)
2. Claim against Defendant C
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a co-operator of Defendant B and D, and Defendant C, along with Defendant B, demanded that the Plaintiff borrow KRW 195,000,000 from the purchase of construction materials. On March 22, 2012, Defendant C loaned KRW 195,000 to E’s employees of the Defendants Company by means of transferring the amount of KRW 195,00,000,000. After selling the Defendants Company’ vehicles, Defendant C had a duty to jointly and severally pay the said balance to Defendant B and the Plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff submitted as evidence evidence evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10 to support the assertion.
First, in light of the fact-finding evidence No. 10, which is a fact-finding certificate under the name of E, there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity thereof, and even if that content was present at the time of preparing documents in the name of the Defendants, it is difficult to believe that the time is not June 2012, but July 2012, which is the time when the Plaintiff asserts, and that it does not correspond to the date of preparing documents No. 6 and No. 7, which are actually submitted by the Plaintiff.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 7, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 195,00,00 to E’s account on March 22, 2012, and Defendant C prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of waiver of the vehicle that the Plaintiff would transfer to the Plaintiff all rights of the three vehicles, including the vehicle for possession on June 20, 2012. However, Defendant C is not a co-operator of Defendant C but a co-operator of Defendant B, and it is substantial.