beta
Text
1. Defendant B, C, and E jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000, and Defendant B with respect thereto.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) was established for soil improvement projects, etc.; Defendant C was the representative director of the Defendant Company; Defendant D was the type of Defendant C; Defendant E was the wife of Defendant C and the inside director of the Defendant Company around 2015.
B. On June 17, 2015, Defendant Company: (a) decided to borrow KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff; (b) on June 25, 2015, the due date shall be June 25, 2015; and (c) on June 25, 2015, the interest rate of 20% per annum shall be paid at the time of default; and (d) Defendant C and E
C. On June 17, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 300 million to the account under Defendant D’s name, and Defendant D wired the said money to the account under C’s name on the same day, and Defendant C wired the said money to the account under the name of Defendant C on the same day.
[Grounds for recognition] The defendants mentioned in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 alleged that Gap evidence No. 4 was forged, and Eul evidence No. 2 was genuinely prepared. However, among each of the above payment forms, Gap evidence No. 4 is stated as "F" and Eul evidence No. 2 is stated as "C", and the remaining part is entirely identical to both. Thus, the correction of the clerical error in Gap evidence No. 4 is deemed as Eul evidence No. 2, and as long as the contents of both are identical, the defendants' above assertion is without merit.
The purport of all pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. On June 2015, Defendant C’s primary claim is as follows: (a) loaned KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff as the equity capital of the Defendant Company in order to obtain a loan for the construction of a new building necessary for the operation of the Defendant Company; (b) obtained a loan from the financial institution on the face of the Plaintiff; and (c) even if the Plaintiff did not make a repayment, Defendant D, who is a punishment, even if he did not do so.