beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, as to Defendant B’s KRW 15,00,000 and KRW 5,000,000 among them, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff sought the return of KRW 25,00,000,000 on January 17, 201, and KRW 10,000 on April 17, 201, and KRW 25,00,000 on March 28, 201, and KRW 10,000 on May 4, 201 against Defendant C, respectively.
The court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for loans of KRW 10,00,000 among the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C and the remainder of the claim against Defendant B. Since only the Defendants appealed, the Plaintiff’s claim for loans of KRW 10,00,000 on March 28, 201 against Defendant B does not fall under the scope of the judgment of this court, which became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff’s claim for loans of KRW 10,000,000 against Defendant B was lost.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 5,00,000,00 to Defendant B on January 24, 2011 as the due date for repayment, and KRW 10,000,000 on April 17, 201 as the due date for repayment on October 17, 2011. The Plaintiff leased KRW 10,000 to Defendant C on May 4, 2011 (hereinafter “each of the instant loans”). The Plaintiff leased KRW 10,00,000 to Defendant C on August 4, 2011 (the Plaintiff’s each of the loans to the Defendants together) is recognized.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, Defendant C is obligated to pay KRW 15,000,000, and Defendant C is obligated to pay each of its damages for delay.
3. Determination as to the defendants' defenses, etc.
A. The defendants of the guarantor's highest and search defense merely borrowed each of the loans of this case from the plaintiff, and the defendants guaranteed D's above obligations. However, the defendants' defense of the highest and search warranting that the plaintiff should first file a claim against D, which is the principal debtor. However, the defendants borrowed each of the loans of this case from the plaintiff as seen earlier. Thus, the defendants' assertion on different premise is without merit.
B. The Defendants against the set-off defense related to D’s deposit claims are the Plaintiff around June 201.