beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 5, 2010, Nonparty B entered into a credit guarantee agreement with the Defendant for a housing loan of KRW 31,50,000 with the guaranteed principal, and on the same day, Nonparty B entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant for a full-time employee loan of KRW 35,00,000 with one bank after submitting the Defendant’s housing finance credit guarantee agreement and the lease agreement between the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff received the above loans directly from one bank on the same day and delivered them to B.
B. B loses the benefit of time due to delinquency in paying the principal and interest of a single bank, and the Defendant subrogated for KRW 32,233,993 to the Han Bank on January 11, 201.
C. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against the Plaintiff, B, etc., the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 32,233,993 and damages for delay thereof to the Defendant,” on the ground that the Plaintiff was committed joint tort by aiding and abetting and abetting the loan of Part B, etc. or by negligence at least.”
Although the Plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, the appellate court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on April 7, 2015 (Seoul Central District Court 2014Na61783), the Plaintiff’s appeal against the said judgment was dismissed on July 3, 2015 (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da216345), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 13, 2015.
(hereinafter the above judgment is referred to as the "final judgment of the previous suit of this case". [The facts of no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination:
A. The plaintiff alleged that he consented to B to receive a loan from one bank, and transferred the loan deposited into the plaintiff's account to B, and did not offer or aid the loan to B, and in the previous lawsuit, the negligence of one bank was not assessed in the course of the loan. Thus, the plaintiff's claim was just a prior suit.