대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On November 20, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a lack of service contract cost related to the apartment construction project of the land E in Ansan-dong, which is promoted by the Defendant Company from the representative director C and auditor D of the Defendant Company.
On November 30, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant by delivering one copy of the face value 100 million check issued in the Plaintiff’s name F at a coffee shop in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul. The maturity was set up until February 28, 2010.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. As to the Plaintiff’s argument on the issue of this case, the Defendant asserts that the above KRW 100 million was paid as investment, not as a loan from the Plaintiff.
Therefore, this paper examines whether the above KRW 100 million is one of the loans or investments.
B. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings.
1) The Defendant Company’s implementation project (hereinafter “instant implementation project”) in the land unit located in Ansan-si, Dong-si, Dong-si, 2009.
At the time, the representative director of the Defendant Company was C, but the actual manager was D. 2) D was introduced through G and H around October 2009, when he was aware of the raising of PF funds to proceed with the instant implementation project.
In October 2009, the Plaintiff had a president to raise PF funds to D, and therefore, the Plaintiff should pay KRW 100 million to the I president as the retainer.
In this regard, there is a defect that there is no funds to be paid as D in advance, and in October 2009, the plaintiff demanded that the plaintiff guarantee 10 million won out of 50% of the shares of the defendant company and 55% of the construction cost to the plaintiff, if the PF loan is made on behalf of the defendant company, while the plaintiff would pay KRW 100 million to D in advance of October 2009.
In October 2009, the plaintiff and D are among the matters of the plaintiff's request.