beta
Text
Defendant B’s KRW 40,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from March 3, 2017 to October 21, 2020, respectively, to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The Plaintiff, on March 2, 2017, lent KRW 40,000,00 to Defendant B. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 40,000,000 won as well as damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum under the Civil Act from March 3, 2017 to October 21, 2020 on the record that the copy of the instant complaint is served on Defendant B, clearly from March 3, 2017.
(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion argues to the effect that the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable with the Defendant B, because the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,000,000 to the deposit account in the name of Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, and the Defendant C lent the said money to the Defendant B for the purpose of Defendant B.
B. Article 24 of the Commercial Act provides that “A person who has permitted another person to run a business using his/her name or trade name shall be jointly and severally liable with another person for payment to the third person who has transacted by misunderstanding himself/herself as the proprietor of the business.”
However, under the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion and evidence No. 1 can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,00 to Defendant B, one of his own land, as a transaction partner. At the time of the said monetary transaction, the Plaintiff did not know or know at the time of the said monetary transaction, and Defendant C was in a legal marital relationship with Defendant B due to the name of the deposit account lent by Defendant B, which was used by Defendant B, prior to lending money to Defendant B, the Plaintiff filed a divorce report on November 8, 2016.
In light of these circumstances, the Plaintiff made the said monetary transaction by misunderstanding Defendant C as the other party to the transaction.