beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 65,00,000 to the Defendants as listed below does not conflict between the parties.
The remittance amount (won) 6,00,000 C on February 5, 2013, 2013, 24,000,000 C 3 3 on February 5, 2013, 200 C 4, 20,000 C 4 March 4, 2013, in total, 65,000,000 B on March 4, 2013, 200,000
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff loaned KRW 65 million to Defendant C’s account designated by Defendant C from February 4, 2013 to March 4, 2013, as shown in the foregoing table, and agreed on three months of maturity and eight months of interest at the time. In addition, at the time, Defendant B provided the Plaintiff with the commercial building owned by the Defendant as security, and Defendant C jointly guaranteed the Defendant C’s above loan obligation. However, on March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was unable to fully pay the interest on the loan amount of KRW 30 million after receiving the interest on KRW 2.4 million from Defendant C. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for payment of the loan amount of KRW 65 million and delay damages. (2) The Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendants is punished for violating the Act on the Regulation of Unauthorized Receipt of Loans, and there was no obligation to deliver the Plaintiff’s investment and redemption money to the Defendants’ account in accordance with the Plaintiff’s request for convenience in the account.
B. The facts that the Plaintiff remitted the total amount of KRW 65 million to the Defendants’ account are as seen earlier.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the statement No. 3, witness F’s testimony, and the results of the fact-finding on the Court Administration Office of this Court, are based on the overall purport of the pleadings. In other words, the Plaintiff’s criminal cases, such as violation of the Act on the Regulation of Temporary Receiving of Goods D and E by the Changwon District Court Decision 2013Ma65, is based on the premise that it is the victim due to the act of receiving goods D and E.