beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. As to Defendant B’s KRW 8,557,300 and its KRW 8,00,000 among them, Defendant B shall be from April 15, 2014 to October 22, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. The Plaintiff’s determination on the cause of the claim is obligated to transfer KRW 5,00,00,00 to Defendant C on November 9, 201, and KRW 40,000,00 in total from November 18, 201 to lend KRW 35,00,000 to Defendant C on November 18, 201, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10,000,000 from Defendant C through Defendant B on July 7, 2011. Thus, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C is obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of KRW 20,00 per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the date following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment.
B. Defendant C, who borrowed money from Defendant B upon introduction of the Plaintiff, agreed with the Plaintiff to repay the said loan through Defendant B. Accordingly, Defendant C paid KRW 40,000,000 to Defendant B around June 201. Defendant B, who agreed with the Plaintiff, to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000, out of KRW 40,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff as above, and the remainder KRW 30,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff, was verbally agreed by Defendant B to borrow from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant C asserted that the said loan was fully repaid KRW 40,00,000.
According to the evidence No. 42 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Defendant C wired the sum of KRW 40,000,000 to Defendant B on June 28, 2011, and KRW 36,000,000 on June 29, 2011, and KRW 2,000,000,000 on June 30, 2011; Defendant B wired the sum of KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 7, 2011; however, Defendant B wired the sum of KRW 10,00,00,000 to Defendant B on the ground that the statement of evidence No. 5 alone alone is a loan to the Plaintiff, or there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between Defendant B and the Plaintiff on the second borrowing. Therefore, the aforementioned defense is without merit.
2. Defendant B.