beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 63,500,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 1, 2017 to August 29, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is keeping the following documents:
① “D” and “E” are the same company as indicated above, and the Defendant C’s business registration is made in the name of Defendant C, on December 17, 2015, respectively.
(3) A contractor B of the same business contract dated January 18, 2016: A contractor B: A signature to be signed by the name side (4) the amount of debt confirmation amount of December 5, 2016, KRW 70 million, and up to June 30, 2017, the obligor B and B who promised to perform the repayment by June 30, 2017, the personal seal affixed on the name B of the end of the document E C, and the personal seal affixed on the business seal affixed thereto.
B. The Plaintiff, with the recipient as “D” or “E C”, remitted each of the KRW 20 million on October 16, 2014, KRW 30 million on December 15, 2014, KRW 30 million on December 15, 2014, and KRW 30 million on November 17, 2015.
C. The Plaintiff is the person who received reimbursement of the total of KRW 16.5 million out of the above remittance amount.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Claim against the defendant B
(a) Indication of claim: The balance of the agreed amount indicated in the debt certificate dated December 5, 2016, KRW 63.5 million, and damages for delay (hereinafter “the instant money”).
(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act (a judgment made by deemed as private capital);
3. Claim against Defendant C
A. It is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C was the party who promised to return the instant money to the Plaintiff solely with the rubber, business seal, transfer account, etc. affixed with the name of business operator or loan certificate, etc. as the party to the agreement. Rather, according to the deposit certificate or the party’s indication indicated in the agreement, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant B was the party who committed the said promise.
This part of the claim against the defendant C is rejected.