beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10 million into the Defendant’s new bank account on December 8, 2010 and lent the said money. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant C is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10 million and its delay damages.
B. As to this, Defendant C, around December 2, 2010, lent 9.7 million won to the Plaintiff’s bank account, the Plaintiff’s wife, and lent the said money to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant C received the said KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on the ground of its repayment, Defendant C’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not lend the said KRW 10 million to Defendant C.
In light of the records of Eul evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that defendant C deposited KRW 9.7 million in the bank account of Eul, the plaintiff's wife, on December 2, 2010. However, in full view of the purport of the argument as to Gap's evidence No. 13, it can be acknowledged that the above KRW 9.7 million was deposited in the bank account of Eul on December 2, 2010 and the above KRW 9.7 million was deposited in the bank account of defendant C, the Dong resident of the defendant C, and ② the above transaction was deposited in the bank account of the defendant Eul during seven times from February 3, 2010 to March 29, 201, it is difficult to recognize that the above payment was made to the plaintiff on the date of the deposit or on the following day, and there is no evidence to recognize that the above payment was made to the plaintiff on December 27, 201.
Therefore, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.
C. Therefore, Defendant C, on October 22, 2013, raised an objection as to the existence and scope of the obligation of the said Defendant from October 22, 2013, following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, to the Plaintiff.