beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 250,000,000 won and the Defendants B from November 12, 2006 to November 17, 2016.
Reasons
1. The fact that the plaintiff decided on the claim against the defendant B, on November 8, 2006, lent KRW 250,000,000 to the defendant B on November 11, 2006, as the due date, to the defendant B does not have any dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant B.
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 250,000,00 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from November 12, 2006 to November 17, 2016, which is the day following the due date for payment, from November 2, 2006, the duplicate of the complaint of this case, to Defendant B, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is about November 2006, Defendant C, the husband of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is about 115 Dong 506 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") of Songpa-gu, Seoul and 115 Dong 506 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").
(2) When presenting the registration certificate and D’s seal impression, if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 250,000,000 to Defendant B under one’s joint and several guarantee, the Plaintiff would pay 30,000,000 to the Defendant Company for its existing loan obligations within three days, and the Plaintiff trusted 250,000,000 won to Defendant B with trust and trust. Therefore, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 250,00,000 to the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to pay the Plaintiff KRW 250,000,00 to the Plaintiff. (b) Defendant C introduced the Plaintiff as a loan, not a loan, and thereafter, the Plaintiff made an investment decision by communicating the Plaintiff with Defendant B, and sought an investment by itself.
C. Defendant C did not have jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the investment deposit.
When the Plaintiff entrusts Defendant C with the registration rights of the apartment of this case and D’s seal impression books, Defendant C would take half of the investment profits, and Defendant C would have the registration rights of the apartment of this case and D.