beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant B's appeal are all dismissed.
2. The appeal cost arises between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is to be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the modification of “determination on the claim for loans to Defendant B” of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case, as prescribed in paragraph (2).
The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties to the determination of the claim for the loan against Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 213 million and delay damages for the loan, since the Plaintiff requested the loan from Defendant B from June 11, 2013 to December 16, 2013 (hereinafter “instant loan”). As the Plaintiff loaned KRW 210 million to Defendant B from June 11, 2013 to December 16, 2013, and again lent KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff on February 18, 2014, Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 213 million and delay damages.
Defendant B’s assertion that: (a) Defendant B borrowed KRW 3 million out of KRW 213 billion; (b) did not borrow the instant loan; and (c) the borrower of the instant loan was transferred from the Plaintiff.
Judgment
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence 2 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence 3 and the whole purport of the arguments, the plaintiff was requested to lend the loan of G operation funds from the defendant Eul, and transferred the loan of this case to the agricultural bank account in the name of defendant Eul designated by defendant Eul four times from June 11, 2012 to December 16, 2013, and was partially remitted from the agricultural bank account in the name of G to February 10, 2014 to the plaintiff 15 times from July 10, 2013 to February 10, 2014; and the defendant Eul had no authority to represent the fact that the plaintiff lent the loan of this case to the plaintiff on April 20, 201.
According to the above facts, the lending of this case was conducted between the plaintiff and the defendant B, and it is reasonable to see that the borrower is the defendant B in the lending of this case.
Accordingly, Defendant.