beta
Text
1. The plaintiff, the defendant B, D, and E are jointly and severally 102,50,000 won, the defendant B, and D are jointly and severally 15,00,000 won, and the defendant B is 5,400.
Reasons
Defendant D and B were married, and Defendant E and F are children of Defendant D and B; Defendant C is Defendant B’s children; Defendant G is an employee of Defendant B’s cosmetics shop operated by Defendant B; and the Plaintiff mainly traded using a passbook in the name of his children. The Plaintiff’s child is a woman H, Women I, C, and South and North Korea’s child is not a dispute between the parties.
The following shall be determined by each claim:
1. Claim for a loan of KRW 10 million on May 21, 2008 (Defendant B, C)
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) on May 21, 2008, the plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the defendant B, and the defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the defendant C's obligation to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant B and C are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 10 million and the damages for delay to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant B and C's assertion that the above defendants paid KRW 10 million to the plaintiff's children J's account on September 29, 2008 and paid the above loans in full.
B. 1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff loaned the repayment date of 10 million won to the defendant Eul on May 21, 2008 on June 24, 2008, and the defendant C guaranteed the defendant Eul's obligation to the plaintiff. However, according to Eul evidence No. 1-1, it can be acknowledged that the defendant D, the husband of the defendant Eul, remitted the amount of KRW 10 million to J's account. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the above loans are all repaid. In light of trade practice between the plaintiff and the defendants, it is deemed that the defendant D and the defendant Eul were treated as the same person. Even if the plaintiff's claim on this issue is asserted, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as the repayment of the defendant Eul's obligation. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as the repayment of the defendant Eul's obligation.