대여금
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 10 million to Defendant C’s account via Defendant C’s account on May 17, 2011, including transfer of KRW 10 million from that time to November 14, 201, and the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50,8 million to Defendant C’s account in the same way from that time to that time, from November 14, 2011, is no dispute between the parties.
(hereinafter the above KRW 50,80,000 is referred to as “the instant money.” The Plaintiff asserts that the instant money is a loan to the Defendants.
As to this, the defendants asserted that the amount of this case is the business fund used by the plaintiff and defendant B for the partnership business.
If the testimony of the non-party company Nos. 3 and 4,00 shares of the non-party company, and the testimony of the witness E and F added the purport of the entire argument, the plaintiff and the defendant Eul decided to introduce the massage and drinking house as a club business, to receive advertising expenses, etc., the plaintiff and the defendant Eul established the company G (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") for online advertising agency business and website business on July 13, 201 in the name of the defendant C, and the defendant Eul established the company G (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") for the purpose of online advertising agency business, website business, etc. on July 13, 201 in the name of the defendant C, and the plaintiff (D's name) had 3,00 shares of the non-party company, and the defendant B (the defendant's name) held 4,00 shares, and the amount of this case was used to purchase the internal house, computer, etc. on July 20, 2011.
According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the instant money is a business fund invested by the Plaintiff in the partnership with Defendant B rather than a loan made by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the instant money is a loan cannot be accepted.
In conclusion, the plaintiff .