beta
Text
1. As to Defendant B’s KRW 44,00,000 and KRW 35,000 among them, Defendant B shall be KRW 9,00,000,000 from November 20, 2015.
Reasons
1. Claim against the defendant B
A. The indication of the claim: The above Defendant lent KRW 44,00,000,000, in total, to the account under the name of D or Defendant C at the above Defendant’s request, as the means of remitting KRW 3,00,000 on May 26, 2014; KRW 9,00,000 on June 5, 2014; KRW 22,00,000 on June 17, 2014; and KRW 10,00,000 on June 19, 2014; thus, the repayment is sought.
Service by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
C. Part of dismissal: As to the claim amount of KRW 9,00,000 extended by the claim and the application for modification of the cause of the claim as of November 17, 2015, the Plaintiff recognized only the damages for delay from November 29, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the duplicate of the above application and dismissed the remainder. 2. The Plaintiff asserted that, on November 29, 2015, Defendant C used the money that Defendant C received with its own account together with Defendant B, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the above loan.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant C used the above money together with Defendant B, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the background of the loan, the Plaintiff confirmed the re-existence of Defendant B by receiving a request for a loan from Defendant B, such as having a factory of Jeju-do “E” and the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant C’s account designated by Defendant B in the manner of payment. However, the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant C in the manner of payment. However, if the above facts are true, the Plaintiff merely lent the money to the Plaintiff as the party to the transaction and lent it to the Defendant C, and it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff lent the money to the Defendant C, and even if the account in the name of Defendant C was used in the monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, the Plaintiff is not jointly and severally liable with Defendant C.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the loan against the defendant C cannot be accepted, and it is dismissed.