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. On April 21, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) determined and lent KRW 45,00,000 to E under the joint and several guarantee of C and D between husband and wife; (b) KRW 450,000 per month; and (c) two years and seven months after the due date.
B. In addition, on April 21, 2013, the Plaintiff paid interest of KRW 20,000,000 to C under the joint and several guarantee of D on April 21, 2013, KRW 200,000 per month, and the due date for payment shall be
8. 20. The loan was made on 20.
C. Meanwhile, on October 5, 2012, E registered its business under the name of F, and operated G with C and D, while newly registering its business under the name of the Defendant on December 24, 2013, E operated the same restaurant with the same trade name. On March 3, 2017, E changed its business registration under its own name.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 and 3 (including additional numbers), the witness E’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The debtors, including E, etc., borrowed the above money with the operating capital of the above restaurant, and did not repay it. After which the defendant continues to use his trade name and operated the above restaurant. The defendant is liable to repay the debt of this case due to the business of the debtor.
3. First of all, there was a transfer of business regarding the above restaurant in determining the cause of the claim.
As to whether the obligation of this case was due to the business of the above restaurant, it is not sufficient to recognize the above only the descriptions or images of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in witness E’s testimony, the above restaurant has been consistently operated by E, C, and D regardless of the name of business registration, and the defendant merely lent the name of the above restaurant’s business registration for a certain period of time. In the process of lending the said money, the issue related to the above restaurant’s operation was not discussed, and E is only recognized as having been engaged in the repayment of personal debts.
4. Conclusion, the plaintiff.