beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd., C, and D jointly and severally with the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) KRW 75,000,000, and KRW 35,000,000 to the appointed Party F;
Reasons
Basic Facts
On November 24, 2004, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter only the Plaintiff) deposited KRW 150 million with Defendant D’s account on December 26, 2004, KRW 70 million with Defendant D’s account on December 13, 2004, and KRW 50 million with the Selection G account on November 25, 2004, respectively.
From October 2004 to January 2005, the Plaintiff received KRW 7.5 million, which is the amount equivalent to the interest on the said money, from Defendant D at the beginning of each month.
Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), C, and D are above-mentioned to the Plaintiff and the Selection around June 2005.
Each money set forth in paragraph (1) is deposited for the purpose of loan, and as a security, the money was drawn up and issued a written confirmation that Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”) will set up a collateral on the I shop owned by Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”) and redeem the principal and interest on June 30, 2005.
【Defendant B, C: Unauthorized pleading Judgment (Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act): Defendant D: (Article 194-196, and Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act). Defendant E: According to the above facts, Defendant B, C, and D are jointly and severally liable to pay the money as part of the loan to the Plaintiff and the designated parties under the order of Paragraph (1).
The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the judgment on the claim against Defendant E was actually lent to Defendant B by Defendant E Company.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the claim to the plaintiff who subrogated the defendant B.
Defendant E’s assertion that Defendant E does not bear an obligation against Defendant B.
Even if there is a debt, Defendant E and Defendant B are merchants, and the extinctive prescription for commercial matters has been completed five years from June 30, 2005.
In full view of the records and the purport of the whole pleadings as to whether Defendant E bears the obligation, Defendant D, who operated Defendant B, is Defendant E.