1. Defendant B’s KRW 153,870,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 10, 2013 to November 13, 2015.
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent to defendant B a sum of KRW 153,870,000 (hereinafter the "the money of this case") as business funds, etc. from August 11, 2010 to October 29, 2013.
According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 153,870,000 and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from April 10, 2013 to November 13, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, Defendant B received a total of KRW 8,073,700 from the Plaintiff and around September 3, 2010, and conducted construction works for remodeling the fourth floor of housing located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D on August 11, 2010, KRW 10,000, KRW 1,000,000 on September 17, 2010, KRW 100,000 on December 8, 201, KRW 30,000 on January 19, 201, and KRW 80,000,000 on April 10, 201, and KRW 12,430,50 on April 10, 2013, the remainder of the instant claim was merely received from Cambodia as the Plaintiff’s purchase cost, labor cost, and labor cost.
The records and images of the evidence Nos. 2 through 5 are insufficient to acknowledge the facts of Defendant B’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Thus, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
2. Although the Plaintiff alleged that Defendant C conspired with Defendant C to acquire, take over, or borrow part of the instant money from, the Plaintiff, in collusion with Defendant C, but the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the instant money to Defendant C’s account under the name of the Plaintiff, alone, that Defendant C acquired the instant money by fraud.
or defendant B, as well as defendant B.