beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for 44,230,170 won and the aforementioned amount from July 14, 2017
B. Defendant C and D are the same.
Reasons
1. The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2-1, and it is difficult to reverse the statement in subparagraph 1 only by the statement in subparagraph 1.
The Defendants, together with the Defendants’ joint tort 1, planned to engage in loan fraud in a size of KRW 10 billion around October 2009, but did not have funds necessary therefor, and Defendant C intended to take the role of “furst”, such as the Defendant C’s acquisition of money against the Plaintiff, which was known to the general public, and Defendant C and D were committed as a business with a large amount of money, and Defendant C and D were able to take the role of “furst”, such as the Plaintiff’s considerable financial power.
Accordingly, Defendant C and D naturally arranged the rest of the Plaintiff and Defendant B as a policeman at early December 2009, and Defendant C and D had a prompt term called the Plaintiff, including “B had a big business in the past and attempted to carry on a big business in Seoul at present,” while Defendant C and D had a large amount of money.”
The defendants also conclude that at the Ulsan-si's resting place on the expressway, Seoul-do around December 14, 2009, Defendant B is entitled to receive KRW 40 million or KRW 50 million from the card payment to the plaintiff. If the card payment amount is extended to KRW 10 million after about 10 days from the card payment, the defendants will receive the card and pay KRW 10 times of interest during the city." The defendant C received from the plaintiff that "I am fright to get the loan from the plaintiff," and there is a loan to the plaintiff that "I am fright to get the loan from the toilet," not from the plaintiff (B) but from the plaintiff.
If you do not pay the money, you do not know about whether you will pay the money instead of Do-Ma.
"Finally false."
However, the facts are that Defendant B does not have a claim of KRW 40 million to KRW 50 million, and the defendants do not have any property or income, and they do not have any other assets or income.