beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion
A. First, the Defendant, on behalf of the husband C, borrowed KRW 10,000,00 in total as operating capital, KRW 20,000 in total as operating capital, KRW 20,000 in terms of lease deposit, and KRW 22,00,000 in terms of driving capital, as operating capital, while operating “E” on the first floor of the D-ground building in Gwangju-si D-si, a husband, on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 32,000,000 and damages for delay.
B. Preliminaryly, even if the party who borrowed the above KRW 32,00,000 from the Plaintiff is not the Defendant but C, the Defendant lent his name to C to operate “E”, and the above KRW 32,00,000,000 was used as business funds, etc. by C while operating “E”. Thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff the above borrowed amount of KRW 32,00,000,000 as the nominal owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act and the delay damages therefrom.
2. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 4, 12, and 13 as to the primary claim, the fact that the Defendant was registered with the business entity of “E” around June 10, 2009, and that the lease deposit, wage, etc. was paid to G, etc., who is an employee of “E” and “E” under the name of the Defendant.
However, in light of the following opposing facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant actually borrowed KRW 32,00,000 from the Plaintiff with business funds, etc. solely based on the above recognition facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, the fact that the Defendant’s husband C was not able to use the account under the name of the Defendant as the one with bad credit standing at the time of starting a business, is not a dispute between the parties. In addition to each of the evidence and evidence No. 11, part of the evidence No. 11, the form of evidence No. 2, and witness G’s testimony, the Plaintiff became aware of C while working in DNA Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd., and C from 2009.