beta
Text
1. Defendant (Appointeds) jointly and severally with the Plaintiff KRW 240,000,000 and Defendant B (Appointeds).
Reasons
1. Claim against the defendant (Appointed Party) and the appointed party E;
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 380,000,000 and interest thereon, on the ground that the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party E, who are engaged in the distribution business through electronic commerce, lent KRW 465,00,000 as business funds to the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appoint Party E, and thus, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Appoint Party E are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 380,00,000 and interest thereon.
(2) The claimant E merely lent the name of the defendant (appointed party) to the defendant (Appointed party) and did not work together with the defendant (Appointed party). The amount that the plaintiff paid to the defendant (Appointed party) is only investment funds, not loans, and there was no agreement to pay interest on the amount.
B. (1) Determination (1) The fact that there is no final dispute over the participants in a joint project, and the fact that the Defendant (Appointeds) jointly runs the business of importing and selling infant supplies, such as diapers and mossiss, if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to each of the statements in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 3-1, 2, 16-1, and 2 of the evidence No. 1, 16-2.
However, according to the evidence Nos. 1-2 through 7, 9, 5-1, 6, 14-1 through 3 of the evidence Nos. 1-3, 2-2, 2-2, 9, 5-1, 5-6, and 14-1 through 3, the defendant (appointed party) is recognized as having engaged in some monetary transactions through an account under the name of E while operating the business called F in the name of the appointed party E, but it is insufficient to recognize that the selected party E was engaged in a joint business with the defendant (appointed party) beyond this evidence and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the claim for the return of the loan is without merit under the premise that the designated party E is in a partnership with the defendant (appointed party).
(2) According to the evidence No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 1 of the judgment on the loan claim No. 1, the Plaintiff’s purchase price for low-priced goods from the Defendant (Appointed Party C).