beta
Text
Defendant B’s KRW 29,400,000 for the Plaintiff and 15% per annum from August 23, 2017 to May 31, 2019.
Reasons
1. Determination as to loan claims
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, via the Plaintiff’s bank deposit account, extended KRW 94,653,084 in total from March 9, 2016 to January 19, 2017, and KRW 41,470,50 in total from February 24, 2017 to April 19, 2017 through the Plaintiff’s bank deposit account; and KRW 23,351,00 in total from April 8, 2016 to September 9, 2016; and KRW 3,40,700 in total from January 23, 2016 to April 6, 2016 through the Plaintiff’s bank deposit account.
2) The Plaintiff was the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) actually operated by Defendant B. Upon Defendant B’s request, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s liability for reimbursement to the Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation that guaranteed the obligation of KRW 40,000,000, which was paid by the Nonparty Company from the E bank. However, the Plaintiff subrogated to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Defendants did not pay the above loan even if using it.
3) The Defendants borrowed the sum of KRW 202,875,284 from the Plaintiff. The Defendants deposited KRW 122,594,051 in total with the Plaintiff’s bank account, and among them, paid KRW 93,218,390 upon deducting KRW 29,375,661 from the Plaintiff’s payment.
4) Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to repay the loan amounting to KRW 109,656,894 to the Plaintiff.
B. In the event of remitting money to another person’s deposit account by means of a transfer of money, etc., the relevant amount of remittance may be carried out based on a variety of legal causes. As such, the person who asserts the lending is individually and specifically responsible for proving that the relevant amount of remittance falls under the loan, and even if Defendant B is the actual operator of Nonparty Company, the individual and the company cannot be viewed as the subject of legal separate rights and obligations.
First of all, according to the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, and 5, the plaintiff is related to the transaction price for the employee's wages or business partners of the non-party company, and the office rent.