대여금
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. At early March 2007, the Plaintiff offered a proposal that the Defendant, who was engaged in wholesale and retail business at C market, extended KRW 25,000,000 to two separate business places to use the Defendant’s above business places, together with the Plaintiff’s and the Plaintiff’s employees. Around that time, the Defendant consented thereto, and run the distribution business by concurrently using the Defendant’s business places for one year thereafter.
B. From March 14, 2007 to January 21, 2009, the Defendant, including KRW 25,000,000, which was agreed to borrow from the Plaintiff as above, created and arranged account books from time to time while using the Plaintiff’s business site. According to the above account books, the Plaintiff’s amount to be settled to the Defendant as of January 21, 2009 is KRW 3,354,070.
C. In addition to those indicated in the above book-keeping book, the Plaintiff remitted the Plaintiff’s account totaling KRW 16,815,000 from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendant ( KRW 10,000,000 on February 22, 2007, KRW 1,000,000 on February 28, 2007, KRW 5,000,000 on July 5, 2007, and KRW 815,000 on December 26, 2007).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff alleged that KRW 13,462,930, the remainder of KRW 16,815,000, which was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s wife D, deducted the Plaintiff from KRW 3,354,070, which the Plaintiff had to pay to the Defendant, is the final settlement amount that the Plaintiff would have to receive from the Defendant. However, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant are both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which are acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the argument in the evidence duly admitted as a whole, namely, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) the act of the merchant is presumed to be for business; (b) the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant began by lending the lease deposit of the said place of business to the Defendant instead of the Defendant’s use; and (c)