beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Part of the claim against the defendant B
A. On September 5, 1997, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 15,00,000 per annum to Defendant B on September 5, 1997 at the interest rate of 14% per annum, the repayment date of September 5, 1999, and the delay damages rate of 19% per annum (the application of the changed interest rate at the time of the subsequent change of interest rate). Accordingly, the part in the Defendant’s name among the evidence No. 1, No. 6-1, and No. 2 can not be used as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and it is insufficient to acknowledge it only with the statement No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
B. On February 27, 1998, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff entered into an agreement between the Defendant B on February 27, 1998 on the self-reliance deposit account to add the interest rate of KRW 15,000,000 and the transaction period of KRW 2,27, 2003, and the interest and delay damages rate of KRW 19,437,494 from the same day to September 29, 1998, and the interest and delay damages rate of KRW 27,203.
The facts that Defendant B signed and sealed a self-reliance deposit monthly agreement containing the same contents as the Plaintiff Union and the Plaintiff Union do not conflict between the parties.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize the above alleged amount solely on the basis of each statement of No. 4, No. 7-1, and each statement of No. 7-1, as to whether the Plaintiff Union granted a loan to Defendant B pursuant to the above-mentioned monthly agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, if the evidence No. 1, No. 2-1, No. 2-2, and No. 4 of the evidence No. 1, No. 2-2, and No. 4 are gathered in the testimony of the witness witness D, the above defendant is required to obtain a loan under the pretext that Nonparty E, who was an employee of the Plaintiff Union, grants a loan to the defendant B around February 1998.