beta
Text
The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant D, including the claim modified by this court, is as follows.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following accusation:
(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The following shall be deleted from 1 to 12:
Under the 4th below, "Insufficient" is insufficient. On the other hand, the contents of the evidence No. 9 (H's statement of fact) are consistent with the plaintiff's above assertion, but H also claims that the defendant Eul lent money to the F account at the request of the defendant B by transferring the money to the F account, etc. like the plaintiff, and there is no specific objective circumstance to support the He's statement, and as seen above, the plaintiff was appointed as the inside director of F on January 19, 201 and deposited the above KRW 100 million to the F account. The plaintiff was issued a certificate of borrowing with respect to loans from the defendant B on October 8, 2010, and it is difficult for the plaintiff to believe that the above KRW 100 million is trustable in light of the fact that it was not separately issued a certificate of borrowing."
The 5th to 6th are as follows.
C. On October 13, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that, on October 13, 2010, the Plaintiff was obligated to repay the loan amounting to KRW 20 million and interest or delay damages on the loan amounting to KRW 120 million to Defendant B, respectively, since the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to Defendant B, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 20 million and interest or delay damages thereon.
According to the statement No. 4-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 4-2, it is acknowledged that Defendant B received the above money from H on October 13, 2010 and the receipt that Defendant B received KRW 120 million, respectively.
In light of this, the issue of whether H lent the above KRW 120 million to Defendant B is separate from whether H lent the above KRW 120 million, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone shall be the defendant on October 13, 2010.