beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 170,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 8, 2011 to October 22, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
【Claims against Defendant B】
1. Indication of claim: below [Defendant A's claim]
1. The plaintiff's assertion is the same as the plaintiff's assertion.
2. Grounds for recognition: Judgment on deemed confession (Articles 208 (3) 2, 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);
3. Partial dismissed portion: The portion of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as the Regulations on statutory interest rates under the main sentence of Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings were promulgated on September 25, 2015 and enforced on October 1, 2015; and the portion in excess shall be dismissed.
1. Defendant A, in collusion with Defendant B, committed a loan fraud tort in which the Plaintiff received a loan worth KRW 17 million from the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff as described below.
Therefore, Defendant A is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 170 million, which is the damage amount, and the damages for delay.
Defendant A, as the owner of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building 711 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), leased the instant real estate to D in KRW 300 million as the lease deposit.
The Defendants: (a) purchased the instant real estate from Defendant A; (b) succeeded to the lease relationship with Defendant D; and (c) concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff (financial institution) to pay part of the sales amount by receiving the instant real estate loan from the Plaintiff as collateral.
Defendant B intended to obtain a loan of KRW 170 million from the Plaintiff as security, and as the existing lease deposit (30 million won) is high, Defendant A, lessee: Defendant A, lessee: 10 million won of lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 800,000: the date of preparation: February 1, 2010, Defendant B prepared a false lease agreement and submitted it to the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff evaluated the remaining value of the real estate of this case by reliance on the above false lease contract, and then this appraisal to the defendant B around July 7, 201.