logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.19 2019가합504472
대여금
Text

Defendant D’s KRW 100,000,000 for Plaintiff A and its corresponding costs from August 31, 2009, and KRW 100,000 for Plaintiff B, respectively.

Reasons

Opinions of the Parties

A. Plaintiffs 1 Defendant D, and Plaintiff A from January 22, 2009 to the same year

8. From January 26, 2009 to November 17, 2012, Plaintiff B lent KRW 39.3 billion between January 26, 2009 to September 23, 2018, and Plaintiff C lent money of KRW 200 million between December 15, 2014 to September 23, 2018.

However, Defendant D did not pay each of the above loans to the plaintiffs until now.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek against Defendant D the payment of KRW 100 million each of the above loans.

2) Defendant E expressed his intent to jointly and severally guarantee Defendant D’s debt to Defendant D with Defendant D’s de facto spouse. Accordingly, Defendant E is jointly and severally liable with Defendant D to pay the amount claimed as part of each of the above loans. Defendant E, despite the absence of the intent and capacity to repay, was deceiving the Plaintiffs and borrowed each of the above loans from the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendants jointly bear liability for damages arising from tort against each of the above loans to the plaintiffs.

B. Defendants 1) The Plaintiff did not lend money to Defendant D, but invested in Defendant D’s casino gambling fund operation business (tentatively called but called buttts business).

Therefore, Defendant D does not bear the obligation of borrowed money against Plaintiff D.

In addition, Defendant D paid cash to Plaintiff A at least once with the revenue of the project.

B) The money paid by Plaintiff B to Defendant D is merely a cashing of Defendant D’s checks, and is not a loan to Defendant D). Plaintiff C did not lend money to Defendant D, but paid Plaintiff C’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.

2. Defendant E did not know that Defendant E borrowed money from the Plaintiffs, and the fact that Defendant E told the Plaintiffs to pay off the borrowed money instead of Defendant E’s debt.

arrow