beta
Text
1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from December 19, 2019 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Defendants asserting that they jointly operate a shipbuilding factory, and borrow KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on March 27, 2013, and KRW 15 million on March 11, 2013, respectively. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay the above loan amount to KRW 25 million, and Defendant C is also obligated to pay the loan amount to KRW 11 million on the loan payment in addition to the said loan amount.
B. (1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to Defendant C on February 27, 2013.
(2) On March 11, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to Defendant B, and the Defendant C agreed to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.
(3) In addition, upon Defendant C’s request from December 2014 to July 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11 million to Defendant C.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
C. According to Article 57 of the Commercial Act, where the Defendants jointly and severally liable to one or all of them for an act that is engaged in a commercial activity, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants borrowed money from the Plaintiff while jointly operating a shipbuilding factory. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant C on March 27, 2013, and paid KRW 11 million on behalf of the Defendant C on behalf of the Defendant, and only can it be recognized that Defendant B lent KRW 15 million on March 11, 2013.
Defendant B paid KRW 15 million on March 11, 2013 to the Plaintiff, but withdrawn KRW 10 million on March 13, 2013, and returned it to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C paid it to the Defendant and received the certificate of loan. However, Defendant C was somewhat ambiguous, but Defendant C stated at an investigative agency that Defendant C was responsible for his/her own responsibility. It is against the ordinary common sense of trade that lending KRW 15 million and returning it again, and that it was against the Defendant B’s money.