beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 265,60,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 3, 2015 to January 13, 2016; and (b).
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff: (a) from September 5, 2007 to October 5, 201, the Defendant totaling KRW 396,200,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) over 25 times as indicated in the attached Table 1 deposit details of the Plaintiff from September 5, 2007 to October 5, 201.
(2) Upon the Defendant’s request, the Defendant lent the money borrowed to each bank account in the name of H in the name of the seller who entered into a real estate sales contract with the Defendant or the Defendant’s wife D, E, Dong F, G, and the Defendant. Meanwhile, on March 27, 2013, the Defendant was indicted for fraud as follows with respect to the money borrowed as stated in [Attachment 1] No. 15 to 24 out of the details of the Plaintiff’s deposit in [Attachment 1] as indicated in [Attachment 1] No. 2013Da1491, and was sentenced to imprisonment for one year for the said court to be convicted of all the charges charged on November 28, 2013.
In the appellate court (Seoul District Court 2013No3809) and the final appeal (Supreme Court 2014Do3712), the defendant's appeal was all dismissed and finalized as it is.
[Criminal facts] Around March 2011, the Defendant stated that, “J” restaurant located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City I, “the owner of a L hotel located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and will remove the existing hotel building and build an urban-type residential housing. In order to increase the floor area ratio of the hotel site, if loan funds and business funds are leased, the hotel removal right shall be given and if the urban-type residential housing will be sold and proceeds from the sale, the hotel removal right shall be paid as reward, and mortgage-mortgage shall be established as security after the loan was purchased.”
However, in fact, the defendant is not the actual owner of a L hotel, and M was the actual owner, so it could not be given the right to remove the hotel to the plaintiff. The defendant is a bad credit holder, and the defendant has a debt equivalent to 300 million won to 400 million won at the time, and there was no specific income, and there was no intention and ability to construct an urban residential house in need of construction cost of 14 billion won, and the above hotel is the same.