beta
Text
Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiffs KRW 66,850,00 and interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from September 25, 2020 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiffs can recognize the fact that the plaintiffs leased 212,80,000 won to defendant C without setting a deadline from July 31, 2018 to December 24, 2018. The plaintiffs are the persons to whom the plaintiffs received 145,950,000 won out of the above loans from defendant C from August 13, 2018 to January 19, 2019. Accordingly, the defendant C has the obligation to pay the plaintiffs 66,850,000 won as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from September 25, 2020 to September 25, 2020 after the delivery date of a copy of the application for change of the purport and cause of the claim of this case.
B. The Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant D is jointly and severally liable to repay the above borrowed money to the Plaintiffs, since Defendant D borrowed money together with Defendant C or jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant C’s obligation to borrow money.
However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.
2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion
A. The claimed amount received from the plaintiffs is not a loan but a loan, and it is the plaintiff A's investment in a credit business with interest of 10% per month for Defendant C to lend money as security to Defendant C, and the above investment amount does not exceed 6,850,000 won if the loss of the business is deducted from the above investment amount. Thus, the defendant C is not obligated to pay the above settlement amount.
B. The fact that Defendant C provided a credit business with money as collateral for the vehicle, and the fact that the Plaintiffs paid money as collateral for the above business did not dispute between the parties, but the Plaintiffs agreed to operate the Defendant C’s credit business and invested funds.