beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.12.07 2016가단102106

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Around May 2008, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant on a loan amounting to KRW 100 million, interest amounting to KRW 3 million, KRW 10 million per month, KRW 10 million per month, and KRW 10 million per month under the name of the Defendant, and entered into a loan agreement on a loan with the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, for a lease deposit of KRW 1127,00,000, KRW 600,000, and KRW 500,000,000 to the Defendant on two occasions on June 30, 2008.

However, the defendant does not repay the remaining principal and interest of KRW 3 million on October 9, 2008, KRW 2.97 million on December 10, 11, and December 8, 2009, and KRW 2.9 million on March 10, 2009, and KRW 1.3.1 million on March 10, 2009, the defendant sought a judgment as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. Fact that there is no dispute over judgment, and according to Gap evidence No. 2, the fact that the plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 100 million (5 million x 2 times) to the account in the defendant's name on June 30, 2008 is recognized.

However, the defendant argues that the above money was F borrowed from the plaintiff or invested money by lending the defendant's account, and that it was not the money borrowed by the defendant.

In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the loan certificate was not prepared between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the above money. Even according to the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to understand that the plaintiff did not prepare a loan certificate for a larger amount of money which is KRW 100 million. ② The issue date of the defendant's personal seal impression (Evidence No. 1-5) was issued on March 19, 2008, which was issued on March 19, 2008, more than three months prior to the date on which the plaintiff remitted the above money to the defendant ( June 30, 2008) by the plaintiff and the defendant before June 30, 2008.