beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff: (a) was a person working in C, a corporation operated by C, and (b) transferred KRW 30 million to the account in the name of C around April 2015; (c) around November 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 73 million in the name of the Plaintiff and deposited the said money into the KB bank account in the name of the Plaintiff used by C with the Plaintiff’s permission for fund management; and (c) around November 2016, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 22 million to E, a creditor of C, as a substitute.
B. From the account in the Plaintiff’s name managed by C, KRW 30 million was transferred from April 20, 2016, ② KRW 15 million on April 26, 2016, ③ KRW 20 million on May 4, 2016, ④ KRW 60 million on September 2, 2016, ⑤ KRW 37 million on September 8, 2016 (this KRW 7 million is deposited in the Plaintiff’s name again on September 9, 2016) to the Defendant’s account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. 1-A against C
Recognizing that the sum of the amounts lent to, or repaid on behalf of, C, as described in paragraph C has been KRW 125 million, and that C has the preserved claim against the Defendant.
With respect to the plaintiff's assertion that vicarious exercise of a creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's creditor's claim as stated
B. In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence 6-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the entire argument in witness Eul's testimony, the plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement due to loan or subrogation of KRW 125 million against Eul, and it can be recognized that C has no ability to repay the above loan, and that it did not assert and exercise a claim against the defendant separately from the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff satisfies the requirements for exercising a creditor's subrogation right.
It is reasonable to see that the defendant's main defense is without merit.
3. The cause of the claim.