beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 135,400,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 12, 2015 to February 15, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Claim against the defendant B
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Claim against Defendant C
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) that the Plaintiff’s assertion B would allow the Plaintiff to perform the installation works of facilities among the construction works of solar power plants promoted by the Government of the United States Gu, which is promoted by the Government of the United States of America, and the Plaintiff was frequently consulted with the Defendant, etc., and the Plaintiff and the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff, on October 23, 2015, by transferring the Plaintiff’s pro-friendly D’s total amount of KRW 15.4 million from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account, and then lending the said money to B and the Defendant without carrying out the said construction. The Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of damages to the Plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor, who by deceiving the Plaintiff along with the said loan amount of KRW 15.4 million, or by deceiving the Plaintiff.
(2) From the defendant's argument B, if money is deposited into the defendant's account because it is difficult to open a passbook, it is found to have been collected to him, and the defendant collected the remaining 13.4 million won after deducting the money to be repaid from B from the defendant's account in the name of D, and there is no fact that the defendant borrowed or acquired money from the plaintiff.
B. According to the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the plaintiff transferred KRW 15.4 million to the defendant's deposit account on October 23, 2015, and the plaintiff is a company operating solar energy business, etc., and the plaintiff is a company operating the plaintiff's business, and it is recognized that the plaintiff made the defendant a name of the defendant's director and made the defendant use it, but it is recognized by Eul's statement and the purport of the whole argument.