beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 64,773,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 2, 2013 to February 24, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a loan service agreement of KRW 50 billion with regard to the development of the project site, such as Defendant A and Yangyang-gun C, Yangyang-do. The main contents are as follows.
1. A lending service provider A shall be responsible for obtaining a loan from a bank;
2. A business operator shall pay a loan service fee (4% of the loan amount) at the same time as the loan amount is deposited.
3. The entrepreneur shall deposit the service provider a monthly amount of KRW 20 million to the head of the Tong for the service provider (three months) subject to the terms of the loan service cost.
4. When a service provider is unable to grant a loan from a bank, he/she shall promptly refund the amount of credit card use in the name of the business operator and the general construction corporation, including interest rate.
B. Defendant B guaranteed Defendant A’s obligation to the Plaintiff under a loan service agreement.
C. In accordance with a loan service agreement, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant KRW 20 million on June 20, 2013, KRW 20 million on July 23, 2013, KRW 58 million on June 21, 2013, and KRW 58 million on June 21, 2013.
In addition, Defendant A received the Plaintiff’s corporate card and used it from June 10, 2013 to August 1, 2013, and the total amount used is KRW 6,753,925.
E. A loan under a loan service contract was not executed until the closing of the instant argument.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry (including a serial number) in Gap 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Since the Plaintiff did not execute the loan specified in the Plaintiff’s alleged loan service agreement, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to jointly return the costs and the amount of credit card usage that Defendant A received from the Plaintiff.
B. Defendant A’s assertion made an effort to consult with the original branch of the Industrial Bank for loan execution, but the loan was not implemented because the Plaintiff’s side failed to meet the necessary requirements, and Defendant A.