beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 13.5% per annum from October 1, 2013 to April 22, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The Plaintiff, as the operating fund of “D” known to Defendant B, set a total of KRW 130,000,000 from April 13, 2010 to June 30, 2013 as indicated in the attached loan list, and lent KRW 30,000 among them as indicated in the same list, and was paid KRW 1,125,000 among them. Finally, on September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,125,000 per annum (13.5% per annum).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 8 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
B. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 13.5% per annum, which is the agreed interest rate from October 1, 2013 to April 22, 2014, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant C is the Chairperson of the Dogdo Association, which is the well-known knowledge of the “D,” and operates the “D” together with Defendant B, and that Defendant C is obligated to pay the above amount of KRW 100,000,000, jointly with the Defendant B, as the Chairperson of the Dogdog Association, who demanded the Plaintiff to borrow money from the Plaintiff and directly managed the funds of the “D.”
B. According to the evidence adopted earlier, we examine whether Defendant C borrowed KRW 100,000,00 as to the loan, and the amount leased by the Plaintiff was transferred to the account in the name of Defendant C, and the interest was paid from the account in the name of Defendant C. However, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to view Defendant C as the loan amount of KRW 100,000,000 solely based on the circumstance acknowledged earlier, in view of the following: (a) the purpose of the loan lent by the Plaintiff is the operating fund of “D”; and (b) there is no evidence to deem that Defendant C jointly operated the “D” with Defendant C along with the Defendant B.