대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following additional portions, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. On April 2016, the Plaintiff asserts that a monetary loan for consumption was a loan to the Defendant amounting to KRW 70 million, which was remitted to the Defendant’s account.
In addition, the above KRW 70 million is against the Defendant’s assertion that it is not a loan to the Defendant, but an investment in C, that is, ① the Defendant’s transfer of the above money to G, H, etc., which is not C, and ② the amount is not a total of KRW 70 million, but a total of KRW 63.5 million, which is not a loan to the Defendant. It is against the Defendant’s assertion that the borrowed money is not an investment in C.
However, as seen earlier, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of lending KRW 70 million as alleged by the Plaintiff.
Even in light of the conversation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as shown in the record (No. 6) submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial, it does not seem that the loan obligee merely demands the loan obligor to pay the loan.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted.
B. On the following grounds, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable for damages caused by the tort against the Plaintiff.
- Unless it is proved that the whole amount of KRW 70 million delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant was delivered to C, the defendant shall obtain the above amount illegally.
The evidence No. 1 cannot be known as to whether C was prepared, and the amount of the Plaintiff’s investment is not specified, and this alone does not serve as a basis for recognizing that the Plaintiff’s 70 million won investment was made to C.
- In addition, the Defendant violated the duty to protect investors.
In other words, the defendant himself has invested in C, but C is in bad credit standing.