beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B’s KRW 30,000,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from December 28, 2017 to April 9, 2019.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 as to the cause of the claim, D may, on October 27, 2017, grant a loan of KRW 60,000,000 to Defendant B on December 27, 2017 without setting interest thereon (hereinafter “the first loan”). On November 14, 2017, Defendant C made a loan of KRW 20,000,000 to Defendant C on December 30, 2017 without setting interest thereon (hereinafter “second loan”), and D died on January 23, 2018, and recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and EnetD (hereinafter “the deceased”).
According to the above, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the first loan as KRW 30,000,000 calculated according to the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares, and the damages for delay from December 28, 2017, which is the day following the due date for payment, to the Defendant C, the amount of the second loan as calculated according to the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares, and the damages for delay from December 31, 2017, which is the day following the due date for payment, to the Defendant C. As seen earlier, the amount of the loan to the Defendants of D is not determined by interest, and thus, the portion of the claim for interest from the date of each loan to the due date is rejected.
2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion
A. The Defendants asserted that the first loan lender is not Defendant B but Defendant C, and Defendant C paid the first loan to the Deceased on November 2017.
According to the above evidence, Defendant B borrowed the above money on October 27, 2017 by stating the personal information of Defendant B on the borrower’s column and allowing Defendant B to repay the said money until December 27, 2017.
“Inasmuch as it can be recognized that the loan certificate (A) was prepared, it is reasonable to deem the borrower of the loan as Defendant B, and the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition.
In addition, in light of the details of passbook transactions submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendants submitted.