Defendant B’s KRW 32,00,000 and its amount are 5% per annum from November 16, 2018 to October 16, 2019.

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s claim was transferred to the bank account in the name of Defendant C, KRW 30 million on August 22, 2018, and KRW 6 million on September 17, 2018, and lent KRW 36 million to Defendant B.

Although Defendant B decided to pay KRW 36 million by November 15, 2018, Defendant B paid only KRW 4 million on November 22, 2018, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 32 million. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 32 million and its delay damages.

Defendant C, in collusion with Defendant B, by deceiving the Plaintiff as if it had no intent or ability to repay to the Plaintiff, received the above KRW 36 million from the Plaintiff, or by aiding and abetting the Defendant B to commit the crime of defraudation by lending the bank account under his own name to Defendant B. As such, Defendant C is jointly with Defendant B, and is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 32 million and damages for delay as damages.

2. Judgment made by deeming the confession of claim against Defendant B (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. We examine the assertion that Defendant C conspireds with Defendant C to commit the crime of defraudation with Defendant B.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is hard to ascertain how the defendant C plays a role in the crime of defraudation alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize the public invitation or participation of the defendant C.

It is argued that Defendant C aided and abetted the crime of defraudation by Defendant B.

In full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in B and 4, Defendant C appears to have opened a bank account in the name of the principal in order to manage membership fees after opening the bank account in the name of the principal in order to manage membership fees, and it is difficult to deem that Defendant B lent its account to the principal while predicting that it was used for the crime alleged by the Plaintiff, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if the violation of the duty of care is recognized against Defendant C, the bank that Defendant C provided to Defendant B.