beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff’s KRW 190 million and the above KRW 30 million from September 26, 2013 to November 25, 2020, Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 190 million from September 26, 2013.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to Defendant B as of September 25, 2013, and additionally lent KRW 10 million on October 15, 2014.
B. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 90 million to the account in the name of Defendant C, which is his/her father, and KRW 60 million to the account in the name of Defendant D, which is his/her spouse.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C and D
A. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff offered loans to Defendant C and D KRW 90 million and KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C and D should pay the said loan to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if Defendant C and D did not directly borrow money from the Plaintiff, Defendant C and D comprehensively permitted Defendant B to use their accounts in their name. As such, Defendant C and D are liable for the repayment of the loan to the Plaintiff in accordance with the apparent representation liability under Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Act.
B. Determination 1) We examine whether Defendant C and D borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff transferred KRW 90 million to the account in the name of Defendant C and to the account in the name of Defendant D on October 15, 2014. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff merely remitted money to the account in the name of the said Defendants on the ground that “Defendant C and D would borrow money from the said Defendants if it would be deposited to the account in the name of Defendant C and D,” and that it did not involve any involvement in the loan process. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant C and D borrowed each of the above money from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and it is recognized that Defendant C and D should have used it to the said account in the name of Defendant C and D.