beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 60,000,00 and 5% per annum from December 2, 2014 to January 23, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant D, as the representative of Defendant B Religious Organization C D’s church (hereinafter “Defendant church”) and the E Limited Corporation (hereinafter “Nonindicted Corporation”), recruited investors through Defendant church or its affiliated investment posters, Internet car page, etc., and carried out real estate development projects in the name of the said church.
B. On December 1, 2013, Defendant D borrowed KRW 100,000,00 from the Plaintiff to December 1, 2014, in the name of the Defendant church and the Nonparty Corporation, from December 1, 2013 to December 1, 2014, and prepared a borrowing certificate to pay twice the maturity, and received KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff to the account in the name of the Defendant church.
C. The Plaintiff demanded the repayment of the borrowed amount to Defendant D prior to the said payment date, and the said Defendant D transferred KRW 18,000,000 under the name of the Defendant church and KRW 12,000,000 under the name of Defendant D’s father’s father, and repaid KRW 10,000,000,000, around April 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 10, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that, upon the request of the defendant D, the plaintiff was obligated to pay 60,000,000 won which was not paid out of the above loans, since the plaintiff was prepared with the certificate of borrowing in the name of the church and lent 100,000,000 won to the plaintiff.
As to this, the Defendants: (a) the instant loan certificate was prepared in the name of the Defendant Corporation and the Nonparty Corporation; (b) the Defendant church may be deemed to have borrowed KRW 50,00,000 in accordance with the principle of divided debt; (c) since the Defendant church has already repaid KRW 40,00,000, the remaining debt of the Defendant church is KRW 10,000; and (d) since the instant loan certificate was prepared in the name of the Defendant church and the Nonparty Corporation, it cannot be deemed that Defendant D borrowed it, and (c) during May 2014, Defendant D shall not be deemed to have borrowed it, and (d) the Plaintiff distributed false facts about the Defendants, thereby spreading them.