beta
Text
1. As to Defendant B’s KRW 30,000,000 and KRW 21,540,00 among them, Defendant B’s KRW 8,460,000 from April 17, 2015.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B
A. According to each of the statements in Gap 6-1 through 6, which is the primary cause of the claim, the facts that the defendant Eul acquired each of the total sum of KRW 6,540,000,000 from January 12, 2015 to March 29, 2015, including KRW 6,540,000,000 from March 29, 2015, and KRW 7,000,000 on January 29, 2015, and February 8, 2015 can be acknowledged. Thus, the defendant Eul is liable to pay the plaintiff a total sum of KRW 2,154,00 and damages for delay.
Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant B acquired money of 30 million won as alleged by the plaintiff, which is the remainder of 8.46 million won, the above part of the allegation is without merit.
B. As to the remainder of 8,460,00 won, which is not recognized in the primary cause of the conjunctive claim, the Plaintiff lent to Defendant B the above 8,460,000 won, including KRW 8,460,00,00,000, and Defendant B decided to repay the above loan to the Plaintiff by April 2, 2015, there is no dispute between the parties, or it is recognized in full view of the purport of the entries and arguments as a whole, Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 8,466,00 and damages for delay.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is asserted to the effect that the defendant C, his wife, took part in the provision of his account when acquiring the above KRW 30 million by defrauding the above 30 million, and thus, he is held liable for joint tort by conspiracy or aiding and abetting around his own account, and that he is held liable for repayment as a preparatory borrower.
The fact that Defendant B received the above KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff to Defendant C’s account, his husband, but there is no dispute between the parties. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion that part of the transferred money was transferred to Defendant C’s other accounts is used for Defendant C’s living expenses, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, this circumstance alone is sufficient to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the transferred money was used for Defendant C’s living expenses.