1. The Plaintiff’s June 25, 201 against the Defendant KRW 60,00,000 based on a monetary loan contract for consumption on June 25, 2010 and its objection.
1. On July 28, 2015, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming a loan of KRW 60,000,000 and damages for delay thereof with the Suwon District Court Sungnam Branch (No. 2015 tea 2800). However, the Defendant was dismissed on October 6, 2015.
[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole argument
2. The assertion and judgment
A. On June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff did not borrow KRW 60,000 to the Defendant, and did not receive any money from the Defendant.
In addition, C asserts that there is no fact that the power of representation has been granted in relation to the loan.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff prepared and awarded a power of attorney to C, and that C borrowed KRW 60,000,000 from the defendant due to lack of construction funds.
B. On June 25, 2010, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60,000,000 from the Defendant on June 25, 2010, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60,000 from the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit, since there is no obligation against the Defendant under a monetary loan agreement on June 25, 2010 as to the Defendant, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation in the instant case where the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s obligation exists.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.