대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had received money from C, and that the defendant would help the defendant receive money because he did work as C, while lending money.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million on May 25, 2006, and KRW 8 million on June 26, 2006, and accepted a promissory note in the amount of KRW 18 million on June 26, 2009, which was issued on June 26, 2009.
In addition, while the defendant's lending of money to the Daegu Nam-gu D Apartment Reconstruction Corporation as a contract for civil engineering works, the defendant borrowed money and received a promissory note with a loan of KRW 6 million on May 7, 2009, and received a promissory note with a loan of KRW 7.5 million on May 7, 2009, and thereafter additionally lent KRW 7.5 million on August 15, 2009, and received a promissory note with an additional loan of KRW 16.5 million on August 15, 2009.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 34.5 million and damages for delay.
2. Each promissory note (Evidence A No. 1-2, A-7) that conforms to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the determination exists, but for the Plaintiff’s claim to be accepted, the fact that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant ought to be recognized.
However, in light of the fact that “A” stated in a promissory note of △△ was written by the Plaintiff itself, that the Plaintiff was unable to submit financial data supporting the loan, that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant several times on the lending business that the Plaintiff asserted by △△△△, and that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff, other than E, lent money to the Defendant, even if the Plaintiff actually paid money to the Defendant, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant borrowed money from G in relation to F and D Apartment Construction (Evidence No. 1 and 2), and that the Defendant borrowed money from G in relation to F and D Apartment Construction (Evidence No. 1 and 2), and there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff lent KRW 34.5 million to the Defendant.
The Plaintiff also lent the certificate No. 5 (Certificate).