beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff as to the defendant B, which constitutes the following amount of payment order:
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she paid KRW 10,00,000 by subrogation to Defendant B, and that he/she lent KRW 7,90,000 to the head of Tong in the name of Defendant C upon Defendant B’s request on December 9, 2014.
Therefore, Defendant B is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 and delay damages therefor, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 7,90,000 and delay damages.
B. The plaintiff, who was in the relation of defendant B's assertion, paid the debt of the defendant B by subrogation or paid the money without any consideration due to the defect in his life with insufficient living. Thus, it is not a lending of donation.
2. Determination
A. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,00 to the account held in the name of Defendant B’s name on December 9, 2014, and KRW 7,900,000 to the account held in the name of Defendant C, Defendant B’s fault on December 9, 2014, there is no dispute between the parties, and Defendant B, by means of the Plaintiff’s aforementioned remittance, has been repaid KRW 10,00,000 to Defendant B’s debt owed to Defendant B.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, namely, the plaintiff paid each of the above money upon receiving a request from the defendant Eul to lend money, the plaintiff sent text messages to urge the defendant Eul several times after transferring the money as above, and the defendant Eul also responded to the purport of promising the repayment. The defendant Eul acknowledged the fact of lending part of the plaintiff's money from the preparatory document dated November 14, 2017, and the plaintiff seems to have been in a relationship with the defendant Eul, although the plaintiff appears to have been in a relationship with the defendant Eul, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff lent KRW 17,90,000 to the defendant Eul without fixing the maturity date.
Therefore, Defendant B is the Plaintiff 17.