beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On the premise that the Defendant lent KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff, the primary argument is merely KRW 322,035,055, which the Defendant may receive from the Plaintiff a total of KRW 444,000,000,000. The Defendant received from the Plaintiff the payment of KRW 444,00,00 in excess of the above principal and interest of the loan. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 121,964,945 (= KRW 44,00,000 - KRW 322,035,055) that the Defendant acquired without a legal title and obtained unjust enrichment from the Plaintiff.
B. The conjunctive Defendant lent KRW 229,130,00 to C on May 15, 2014, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the amount of KRW 1,031 square meter in Jongno-gu Seoul (Seoul) owned by the Plaintiff to secure the above loan obligation. C only paid KRW 229,130,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant was paid KRW 444,00,000 from the Plaintiff who is the surety’s surety and received KRW 214,870,000 (= KRW 444,000,000 - KRW 229,130,000) without any legal cause. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the claim amount to the Plaintiff who subrogated on behalf of C based on statutory subrogation and the right to claim reimbursement.
2. Determination
A. We examine the judgment on the primary argument. The loan transaction contract (No. 3) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence supporting the Defendant’s lending KRW 300,000,00 to the Plaintiff is hard to confirm the existence of the original, and even if the above document can be used as evidence, it is not possible to use it as evidence, and even if it is possible to use the above document as evidence, the document is written only as a debtor (a borrower) and it cannot be viewed as a joint debtor or a joint borrower. The Plaintiff, the husband of the Plaintiff, filed a complaint against the Defendant as a violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users and Guarantee of Interest (Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office 2016, No. 11249). The Defendant received the disposition of non-prosecution (Seoul District Prosecutors’ Office 2016) without suspicion.