beta
Text
1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
2. Defendant C is KRW 100,000,000 and this shall apply to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Claim against the defendant B
A. The purport of the assertion was that the Plaintiff was requested by Defendant B, the husband of Defendant B, Defendant C, etc. to lend funds to operate a restaurant in Mexico.
The plaintiff was aware of the fact that D was a bad credit holder, and therefore, he would lend money if he would bring about a loan certificate under the name of the defendant B who is the spouse.
Accordingly, Defendant B, while being aware of the fact that Defendant D, etc. borrowed business funds from the Plaintiff, prepared a certificate of borrowing money and delivered it to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 100,000,000 and delay damages therefrom with Defendant C who jointly borrowed business funds.
B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B agreed to pay KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff, the evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the establishment of the authenticity, and no other evidence to prove the above assertion exists.
The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is without merit.
2. In full view of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 (a dispute over the part of defendant C's seal image, and the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established as a whole. Defendant C shall have no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise), Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 9, 10-1, 2, and 11 through 16, the whole purport of the pleadings was as follows: (a) around May 2015, the fact that defendant C and D et al. agreed to operate a restaurant at Mexico; (b) on May 6, 2015, the plaintiff who was related to D et al. agreed to lend KRW 100,000,000 annually to the defendant C and on May 31, 2016; and (c) on the same day, the loan certificate was issued from the same date to the defendant C et al. in accordance with the above air transport rights, the plaintiff purchased the goods from May 15, 2015 to the defendant C et al.