beta
Text
1. The plaintiff B's lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff A and C's claims are dismissed, respectively.
3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
With respect to the plaintiffs' assertion E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E"), the plaintiff Eul has the claim for a promissory note amounting to KRW 150,000,000, the claim for a loan amounting to KRW 100,000,000, the plaintiff Eul has the claim for a promissory note amounting to KRW 15,000,000, and the plaintiff Eul has the claim for a return of unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 310,000,00 which the defendant holds in excess of the amount of his own loan. Thus, the plaintiffs exercise the above claim for a return of unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 310,00,000, as a creditor of E
Judgment
According to the existence of the preserved claim as to the existence of the preserved claim and the necessity of preservation, Plaintiff A A’s certificate No. 1-1, the existence of the preserved claim is recognized since, on July 26, 2016, E issued to Plaintiff A a promissory note with the face value of KRW 150,000,000, and the due date for payment “payment at sight” to the Plaintiff, and on July 27, 2016, it can be recognized that the said promissory note was prepared with the F notary’s joint office certificate No. 723, 2016. Thus, the existence of the preserved claim is recognized.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that there is no underlying claim of the above Promissory Notes, but the absence of underlying claim constitutes human defenses which can be set up against the obligor. However, the third obligor cannot set up against the obligee's obligee's defense in the creditor subrogation lawsuit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da104113 Decided April 29, 2010, etc.). Even if there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent money was leased is proved by the burden of proof on the Plaintiff who asserts that the lending was made.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). Pursuant to the entry of No. 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the Plaintiff’s title, the account under the Plaintiff’s name is 100,000, from the Hanam Agricultural Cooperative (G) account under the Plaintiff’s name to the E’s name on November 28, 2013.