beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 21,420,00 with respect to the Plaintiff and Defendant B with respect thereto from April 6, 2017, and Defendant C with respect to the Plaintiff on April 6, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 18, 2010, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 10 million to Nonparty D’s account, and D remitted total of KRW 10 million to Defendant C’s account on August 25, 2010.
B. On March 25, 2011, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the D account, and D, in total, remitted KRW 11,420,00 ( KRW 6,000,000) to the Defendant C’s account.
C. Meanwhile, on April 11, 2011, Defendant C issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 35 million to the Plaintiff, and the said promissory note was drawn up by a notary public with a notarial deed No. 154 with respect to the said promissory note as a law firm ice No. 2011.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., loan claim) Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to Defendant B via Nonparty D, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants should pay KRW 15.6 million to the Plaintiff out of the principal amount of KRW 30 million and the interest accrued until January 25, 2017.
B. The Defendants agreed to the Plaintiff that “Defendant B shall repay the said money in full.” Thus, the Defendants shall pay the said money.
B. Although the Plaintiff asserted that he lent money to Defendant B, the date or amount of lending money is not specified.
In addition, Defendant C only prepared a promissory note against the Plaintiff, and there was no joint and several liability for Defendant C’s obligations. Since the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit three years after the date of payment of the promissory note prepared by Defendant C, the obligation of promissory note against the Plaintiff was extinguished by prescription.
C. (1) In light of the following circumstances, Defendant B’s assertion as to the existence of the loan claim and the evidence mentioned above, and the overall purport of the pleading, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following facts: (a) the existence of the loan claim and the evidence mentioned above, and (b) the entire purport of the pleading.