beta
Text
1. Defendant C’s KRW 135 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from April 4, 2008 to May 14, 2015.
Reasons
1. On March 27, 2006, the gist of the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim: (a) the Defendants and the Defendants set the due date on April 3, 2008, and lend KRW 135 million to the Defendants; (b) the Defendants jointly and severally concluded a loan agreement for consumption (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”); and (c) the Defendants paid KRW 135 million to the Defendant C under the said loan agreement.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 135 million and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. Between the Plaintiff and Defendant C, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 135 million to Defendant C on March 27, 2006 with the due date set on April 3, 2008. However, Defendant B, holding the building located in Suwon-si District D (hereinafter “instant building”) under a title trust from Defendant C, and Defendant B prepared the loan loan agreement (Evidence 1) by stating the borrower as Defendant B, the joint guarantor as Defendant C, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid the above loan amounting to KRW 135 million, the Plaintiff may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings as a whole.
B. However, it is difficult to recognize the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds delineated below among the Plaintiff and Defendant B.
Although there is no dispute between the parties that the following seals affixed by Defendant B’s name, which is indicated in the evidence No. 11, are affixed with the seals of the above Defendant, the fact that Defendant C affixed the seals of Defendant B on the side of the above evidence No. 1, does not conflict between the parties.
In full view of the purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that Defendant B’s certificate of personal seal impression issued by proxy was attached to the above evidence No. 1, and the Plaintiff’s personal information, such as Defendant B’s resident registration number, was verified at the Plaintiff’s newspaper at the time of the loan loan agreement with Defendant B, and the voice of Defendant B was similar.