beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 40 million and, with respect thereto, KRW 5% per annum from November 30, 2017 to May 30, 2018, and the following.
Reasons
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants, the married couple, agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million in addition to the loan from the Plaintiff and the amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff, and thereafter, they additionally lent KRW 5 million in total, including KRW 150 million on September 30, 2017, KRW 500,000 on October 2, 2017, and KRW 3 million on October 8, 2017, respectively, to the Defendants. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 45 million and the amount of damages incurred by the Plaintiff.
First, as to the KRW 40 million, there is no dispute as to the fact that Defendant B’s obstruction is affixed to the part of the document, and thus, the authenticity of the entire document is recognized. However, the Plaintiff himself is the person who stated it later. As such, the authenticity is recognized only for the other part.
According to the statement, Defendant B may recognize the fact that Defendant B prepared and delivered a loan certificate of KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff on September 9, 2017. As such, Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 40 million and delay damages.
The plaintiff asserted that the defendant C borrowed money from the plaintiff as the defendant B and agreed to pay the above KRW 40 million, but it is not sufficient to recognize the above only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 through 14, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Next, as to whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 5 million to the Defendants, according to the health account and evidence No. 2, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 1.5 million on September 30, 2017, KRW 400,000 on October 2, 2017, and KRW 3 million on October 8, 2017. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff delivered or lent it to the Defendants.
Therefore, as requested by the Plaintiff, Defendant B is about the existence and scope of the obligation of Defendant B from November 30, 2017, following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff.