beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) and C, by borrowing money from the Plaintiff, invested the said money to Nonparty E, the owner of the building D’s ground (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant building”), and subsequently, the lessee, who operates F under subparagraph 102 of the instant building, agreed to pay the said borrowed money by receiving a fee from the lessee ES Korea Co., Ltd., and on May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant and Nonparty on March 31, 2014, setting the maturity period of KRW 150 million and the annual interest rate of KRW 12%.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant loan for consumption”). After that, KRW 150 million, which was actually paid from the Plaintiff, was invested in E in the name of the Defendant, and a lease alteration contract was concluded with the lessor of the instant building added by the Defendant to the lessor of the instant building. The Defendant and C deposited KRW 1.5 million interest per month in the Plaintiff’s account by April 23, 2014, in the name of G (hereinafter “G”) for which C, which was a joint user of the instant loan for consumption, is the representative director, or C.
Therefore, the Defendant, as a co-owner under the loan agreement of this case, is liable for the repayment of KRW 150 million, which is the full amount of the loan under the loan of this case. Thus, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the repayment of KRW 150 million and its delay damages.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion that C is the representative director of G and the Defendant’s husband H was in office as a director of G, and C calls to the Defendant around May 2012 and calls to the Defendant that “A had a name in relation to the G’s business and talked with her husband H.” and sent his personal seal impression and seal to G through Kwikset services, and again returned to G. However, the Defendant did not know at all regarding the conclusion of the instant loan for consumption.