beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 188.6 million and KRW 130 million among them from January 2, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. From around 2007, the Defendants jointly operated the G Building 207 and 208 (hereinafter “instant building”) with the trade name “H” (hereinafter “the instant grassland”).
B. On August 2, 2007, the Plaintiff withdrawn 130 million won from the account in the name of the Plaintiff’s wife from the 4th page of the check and delivered it to Defendant D.
C. On September 1, 2007, Defendant B prepared a lease agreement with the lessorJ, setting the lease term from February 28, 2007 to February 27, 2012, wherein the instant building was leased as KRW 200 million, KRW 9 million per month, and the lease term from February 28, 2007 to February 27, 2012, and entered the Plaintiff as a joint lessee even if the Plaintiff was not an actual lessee.
From September 6, 2007 to January 28, 2014, a sum of KRW 160,400,000 has been deposited in several times in the name of “D”, “H”, and “B” with the Plaintiff’s wife’s account.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 (if there are serial numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness K's testimony, fact-finding results on the Fafyfyfyfy branch, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. In this case, the witness K used the Plaintiff’s wife, and Defendant D’s friendship with both the Plaintiff and the Defendants,” and the Defendants requested K to provide loans to the Plaintiff in 2007, with the Defendant’s intent to operate the revolving bed rice, and recommended K to lend money to the Defendants. The Plaintiff provided loans to the Defendants on August 2, 2007 at KRW 130 million, interest rate of KRW 130 million, and three years after the due date. The Plaintiff received the checks from the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff was Defendant D but as well as Defendant C and B jointly responsible for it. The reason why the Plaintiff did not receive a loan from the Defendants was that the Plaintiff had been aware of the Defendant D, C, and C, and C, and C, and C, respectively.
“.......”