beta
Text
1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim is dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 24, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted the total of KRW 24 million to the Defendant’s account, and KRW 24 million on June 30, 2016, respectively.
B. On November 9, 2017, the Defendant’s written confirmation that: (a) on November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 24 million to the end of February 2018 at the interest rate of 15% per annum; and (b) thereafter, the Defendant’s written confirmation that the interest rate of KRW 25% per annum is paid; and (c) the written confirmation contains the following details.
I received total amount of KRW 24 million, including KRW 20 million on June 24, 2016, and KRW 4 million on June 30, 2016 from D as private teaching institute investments.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 3 (if there is a tentative number, including a tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and C jointly operated a company specializing in studying abroad, “E,” and the Plaintiff leased KRW 24 million to the Defendant and C as business funds upon C’s request.
This is because the defendant and C have borrowed money as an act of commercial activity, under Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the above loans amounting to KRW 24 million.
B. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 24 million to the Defendant’s account, and the fact that C written confirmation that the Defendant was paid the said money to the Plaintiff as a private teaching institute investment deposit is recognized in the above basic facts.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant operated the above “E” together with C, that is, ① the money transferred to the Defendant’s account was transferred to each account of F as designated by C or C at that time, ② the above confirmation is merely merely that it was prepared by C, not the Defendant, and the primary purpose of the confirmation is that C is the obligation to pay the above money, ③ the Defendant actually operated the above “E” with C.