beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (in the case of evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of this case, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity thereof, the part under each of the defendant's names is limited to the remainder except for the remaining parts) of this case, C borrowed a deposit amount of KRW 30% per annum from the plaintiff on June 5, 2013, and KRW 80 million due date, April 5, 2014, and the plaintiff borrowed a deposit of KRW 180 million in relation to the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and 3 Dong 1505 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), which is the defendant's possession, from the plaintiff on June 5, 2013, and the tenant provided a lease contract (hereinafter "the lease of this case") with the defendant on the above loan of KRW 180 million,000,000,000 as security for the above loan of this case, and it can be acknowledged that the contract to establish a private pledge contract in ELS.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim is that C borrowed money from the Plaintiff as security by presenting the instant lease contract to another person, etc., and the Defendant took part in C’s fraudulent act, such as allowing the preparation of the instant lease contract, and thus, C and C are obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for the above KRW 80 million.
3. The Defendant directly prepared the instant lease agreement.
There is no evidence to deem that C was involved in the fraudulent act by means of, such as lending money or allowing its preparation, and rather, according to the written evidence of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Defendant leased the apartment of this case to C on November 9, 2012, with the deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 900,000,000, and the period from December 6, 2012 to December 6, 2014, and C borrowed money from the Plaintiff and requested the certification of a letter of pledge contract, the Defendant’s resident registration certificate under the name of the Defendant presented at the time when C borrowed money from the Plaintiff and requested the certification of a letter of pledge contract can only be recognized as a forged resident registration certificate, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable.
4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.