Since the actual use of the instant loan is the Nonparty, the Defendant and the Nonparty are liable for the repayment of the instant loan between the Nonparty and the Nonparty.

Since the Defendant merely lent the name of the loan of this case to the Nonparty and actually used the loan of this case, the Defendant is liable for the repayment of the loan of this case between the Defendant and the Nonparty.

2016 Gohap45598 Claims

Korea

AAA Corporation

January 25, 2017

February 15, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 207, a commercial class, a commercial class, and its members at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the parties

The defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling automated machines, real estate rental, etc., and the non-party B is the defendant's internal director, and the non-party bilateralCC is the defendant's representative director and the non-party B's incidental parent

B. The Plaintiff’s establishment, etc. of a taxation claim against both BB

The Plaintiff had both BB until June 2016, 2016, when filing the instant lawsuit, a total of 400 capital gains tax and value-added tax, a trade-related class, and a trade-related class, as follows, and both BB have not been paid up to now.

(c) the establishment, etc. of a collateral security right against DB banks; and

1) On June 201, 201, the twoB took out 700, 100, 200, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,000,000

(2) On the same day, the Defendant was 200, a job-for-the-job loan, a job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-the-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-the-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job-for-job]

1) The instant loans were withdrawn on June 201 by bothB, 200, 200, 198, 112, 112, and 835, excluding 1,000,000 won for creation of a collateral security, 920, and 90,000 won for credit assessment and fund loan, and the remaining 85,00,000,000 won was remitted to the accounts of both BB on June 201.

2) On June 2007, bothB established a collateral security right on the instant real estate in order to secure the above loan obligations after receiving a loan of KRW 800,00,00 from the EE Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “EE Bank”). The twoB revoked on June 201, 201, the sum of KRW 112,00,00,000, and KRW 835,00,000, out of the instant loan withdrawn from the Defendant’s account, excluding the cost of creating a collateral security, etc., out of KRW 70,00,00,000, and KRW 70,000,000,000, and KRW 80,000,000,000,000 from the Defendant’s account.

3) On June 201, 201, 85 capital gains, 245 won transferred to the D bank account of the twoB, were transferred to the FF, GG, HH quantitativeB, II Construction, etc. over several months thereafter.

E. Repayment of the instant loans

1) The Defendant’s income statement in the year 201 through 2013 stated that the interest on the instant loan was treated as the interest expense of the Defendant.

2) On December 2014, 2014, the twoB sold the instant real estate to Nonparty NewJ, J, and JK. On the same day, the two sold the instant real estate to Nonparty NewJ, J, and JK, and on the same day, the instant loan principal and interest 207 of the instant loan, which is the secured debt of the establishment registration of the creation of a neighboring mortgage of the instant No. 1, and the instant loan principal and interest of the instant loan of KRW 13, 151, and the instant secured debt

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and 10 (which has a tentative number)

written evidence of Nos. 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The twoB is a surety to secure the principal and interest of the instant loan on behalf of the Defendant, and repaid the principal and interest of the instant loan to the D bank. As such, both BB has a claim for reimbursement equivalent to the above amount against the Defendant. Therefore, in order to preserve a tax claim as both BB’s tax claim, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the said claim for reimbursement against the Defendant, 207, commercialization, and commercialization.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The twoB borrowed X0 million won in its own name due to the provision on the lending limit of the same person to obtain a loan from the D bank, and the X00 million won was loaned under the name of the Defendant and used both B. Therefore, the Defendant is merely the debtor in the form of the instant loan, and the Defendant is responsible for the repayment of the instant loan between the Defendant and the twoBB, and thus, the Defendant cannot claim for reimbursement against the Defendant on the ground that both BB repaid the instant loan.

2) Even if the parties to the instant loan are the Defendant, as long as both BB used the instant loan, the Defendant ought to be deemed to hold the loan claims equivalent to the instant loan against both BB, and the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity was offset or deducted from the Defendant’s above loan claims.

3. Determination

We examine who is responsible for the repayment of the instant loan between the Defendant and the twoB.

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the facts acknowledged earlier, ① 12 out of the instant loans, capital gains, and 835 won were used for repayment of personal debt of both BB on the date of loan, ② deposited in the individual account of both BB 85, capital gains, and 245 won, ② deposited in the individual account of both BB 85, capital gains, and 245 won was not deposited again to the Defendant, and several other parties deposited over a considerable period of time, etc., it appears to have been used for both B (in order for the Defendant to use the instant real estate for the necessary purpose, there is no reason to use them after moving the instant real estate to the twoB personal account). ③ In view of the fact that both B and B were to have borrowed KRW 00 million from the EB bank as collateral, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was liable for the loan from both B and the Defendant’s loan out of the loan amount in the name of both B 200,000 won and the loan was executed on the same date.

Therefore, even if both BB repaid the instant loan, it cannot be claimed against the Defendant on this ground. Thus, the prior Plaintiff’s claim on a different premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.