beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Defendant B and E shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 176,521,024 and their importance.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, as indicated in the table below, lent Defendant B a total of KRW 130,000,000 over three occasions (hereinafter “instant loan”).
An abbreviationd name loan with interest rate in arrears at the first rate on February 30, 2012, the first loan with 30,000,000 per annum 48% per annum on November 1, 2012, and the second loan with 30% per annum 48% per annum on May 29, 2012, and 18% per annum 30% per annum on December 30, 2012, and 30% per annum on December 30, 2012, the fact that there is no dispute over the loans with 30% per annum on May 30, 2012, and 18% per annum on December 30, 2012, the purport of each of the statements, the purport of each of the statements, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the loans as stated in subparagraphs A through 111 (a) (including the number of pages).
2. As to the Defendants’ claim for payment of KRW 4,00,000 against the Defendants on June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) determined that the Defendants, in addition to the instant loan, lent KRW 4,000,000 to Defendant B at an annual interest rate of 30% on June 12, 2015; and (b) the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff.
In the event of a transfer, etc. of money to another person's deposit account, the remittance may be made by various legal causes. As such, the party who asserts the remittance bears the burden of proving that the remittance is a loan under a monetary loan contract with the person who receives it.
The fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 4,000,000 to the passbook in the name of the defendant B is no dispute between the parties.
However, the following circumstances revealed in full view of Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, in the case of the instant loan, the plaintiff received a loan certificate from each of the defendant B at the time of transfer and prepared a notarial deed. However, no document was prepared regarding the above amount of KRW 4,00,000, and the plaintiff and the defendant Eul drafted a written agreement (Evidence No. 2) on July 25, 2017 regarding the instant loan. This is made after the remittance of KRW 4,000,000, taking into account the following circumstances.