beta
Text
1. Defendant C shall pay 58 million won to the Plaintiff the annual rate of 12% from August 6, 2011 to the date of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C
A. From July 28, 2009 to August 5, 2010, the Plaintiff leased KRW 58 million to Defendant C by designating 1% per month interest rate, and Defendant C from August 31, 2009 to November 30, 209, paid KRW 1,90,000 (4 and KRW 3 million per 4,000 won per 4,000) over five occasions as interest on the above loan to the Plaintiff from August 31, 2009 to November 30, 209, the Plaintiff may be recognized by taking full account of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number). Accordingly, Defendant C has the obligation to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay with the rate of KRW 58 million per annum from August 6, 2011, which the Plaintiff seeks after the date of the final payment of interest.
B. As to this, Defendant C asserted that the amount of KRW 10 million, out of KRW 30 million remitted on July 28, 2009, was received without any condition for the purpose of performing the right to receive the payment, not the loan. However, in light of the amount of money paid by Defendant C as interest, etc., it is reasonable to deem the above KRW 10 million as the loan, and thus, Defendant C’s above assertion is rejected.
2. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B, the wife of Defendant C, was jointly and severally liable with Defendant C for the payment of the above loan and interest thereon on the ground that the Plaintiff created an account in the name of son and used 58 million won as Defendant C by directly receiving transfer from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff used the loan to the same extent, and the case was thereafter thereafter. However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not have met Defendant B by the time of the above loan, the above circumstance of the Plaintiff’s circumstance alone is insufficient to view Defendant B as the co-user of the above loan, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is justified, and the claim against the defendant B is groundless.