beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 80,000,000 won and the period from February 3, 2015 to December 28, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 25, 2013, the Defendants drafted a monetary tea certificate (Evidence A 1) written as “100,000,000 won for rent, interest rate of 12% per annum on November 24, 2014, interest rate of 10% per annum on overdue interest, and 10% per annum on overdue interest, the creditor, the principal debtor, the Plaintiff, the principal debtor, the Defendant B, the joint and several sureties, D AS Korea, and Defendant C.
B. On November 25, 2013, from the account in the name of E, which was an employee of MSS Korea Co., Ltd., to the account in the name of Defendant B, KRW 100,000,000 was remitted, the remitter’s name was recorded as the Plaintiff at the time. Defendant B repaid KRW 20,000,000 to the account in the name of E on February 2, 2015.
C. E filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 80,000,000 for loans against Defendant B and SP Korea (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) with Cheongju District Court Decision 2015Da20267, Cheongju District Court Decision 2015Da20267, but the said judgment became final and conclusive around November 25, 2013 on the ground that the parties to the instant contract for a loan for consumption (hereinafter “instant contract”) were the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 (the defendant Eul was on the third day of pleading on September 21, 2016, and the defendant C was on the fifth day of pleading on March 15, 2017, and the defendant Eul revoked it on the eighth day of pleading on October 17, 2017, but there is no evidence to prove that the above recognition of its establishment was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, the above revocation is not effective), Eul evidence 2-1 through 7, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 4, and Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. We examine whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendants on November 25, 2013, i.e., whether a party to the instant contract is the Plaintiff.
Where an actor who executes a contract has done a juristic act in the name of another person, the intention of the actor and the other party to the contract shall be the same as the other party to the contract, first of all, if the actor and the other party agree.