beta
Text
1. The part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
2. Defendant C is KRW 160,000,000 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff
The summary of the assertion is that the Plaintiff: (a) on July 16, 2013, jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant C, Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”); (b) KRW 10 million;
7.22.10 million won;
8.6.5 million won was each lent.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 160 million and damages for delay.
According to the statement No. 3 of the judgment on the claim against Defendant B (including the number of branches), the fact that the Plaintiff’s account was transferred from July 16, 2013 to the Defendant B’s account, and that KRW 20 million was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account in the name of Defendant B on the following day;
7.22.10 million won
8.6.5 million won is recognized to have been remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to Defendant B’s account.
However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 160 million to Defendant B solely based on the facts acknowledged or the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the first instance court and the first instance court, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.
As above, the Plaintiff did not prepare a loan certificate for a total of KRW 170 million that the Plaintiff remitted to Defendant B’s account (No. 2 (each blank car certificate) and does not include the contents of a loan for consumption of money). The above remittance alone cannot be seen as the source of remittance.
The evidence No. 4 (Recording) states that Defendant C shall pay the Plaintiff money, but does not state the date and amount of the occurrence of the obligation subject to the repayment.
The evidence Nos. 5 through 7 was equivalent to KRW 160,000,000 for Defendant C’s debt to the Plaintiff around March 2007.
‘Opinion' is written in each of the opinions of investigative agencies or the statements of Defendant C.
However, even according to the above description, the above obligation is the obligation of Defendant C.