beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff
The summary of the argument is that Defendant B borrowed KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014, and Defendant C and D agreed to jointly repay the above debt of Defendant B. As such, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 40 million and damages for delay.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the written evidence No. 1, Defendant B’s loan of KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff on December 1, 2014 with Defendant D as joint and several employees, and Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff for the debt of KRW 50 million, plus KRW 50 million, for the additional interest on the debt of KRW 50 million, which was established on the real estate E at the time of Mineju, up to May 20, 2015. The interest on KRW 40 million on the debt of KRW 50 million shall be provided as security until May 20, 2015, and the interest on KRW 40 million shall be KRW 3,50,000,000 as interest on the debt of KRW 50,000,000,000 shall be KRW 50,000,000.
In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant C also agreed to jointly repay the above loan debt of the defendant C, but it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion against the defendant C is without merit.
On the other hand, Defendant B and D protested to the effect that on June 24, 2019, Defendant B and D repaid all the above loan obligations to the Plaintiff.
In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 1, the above Defendants, through H on June 24, 2019, acknowledged that they repaid the Plaintiff KRW 50 million, including the above loan amount of KRW 40 million and the above loan amount of KRW 50 million and interest KRW 50 million and the additional interest, etc., and the Defendants asserted that they repaid the above loan amount of KRW 190 million with the above repayment. In light of the above, the Plaintiff did not dispute the defense of the payment by the Defendants.