Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant B which exceeds the money ordered to be paid below.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff has produced and sold interest in the name of “E” in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon, and Defendant B is engaged in the business household Do, retail and import business in the name of “G” from Seo-gu, Incheon, and Defendant C, who is a son, is the representative of “G”.
B. On May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to Defendant B, and prepared a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the debtor as Defendant B, and received cash custody certificate.
C. On July 30, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 40 million to receive a cash custody certificate. Defendant B signed and sealed the name plate of “G” and Defendant C’s seal.
On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied 25,00 mobile components to the said “G”; (b) drafted a trading list stating that the amount of the goods is KRW 19,250,000; and (c) lent KRW 5 million to Defendant B on December 22, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
(a) Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) When Defendant B prepares an authentic deed, cash storage certificate, and loan certificate as above, Defendant B prepared the said authentic deed, cash storage certificate, and loan certificate from the Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, KRW 40 million on July 30, 2013, KRW 5 million on December 22, 2013, and KRW 1,000,000 on December 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”).
The fact that the Plaintiff received is not a dispute between the parties, and according to the evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s moving parts equivalent to KRW 19250,000 to “G” on November 19, 2013 (hereinafter “instant goods”).
(2) According to the above facts, Defendant B is also obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of 11,4250,000 won and delay damages for the loans and goods of this case.
B. As to the Defendant B’s defense, the judgment on the instant loan No. 1 was made.