beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2019.05.23 2018가단109521

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entry in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2, together with the whole purport of the pleadings:

On July 25, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 70 million to the Defendant, who is the seat of Da on July 25, 2008.

B. The Defendant remitted 5.6 million won to C on October 7, 2008.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party's assertion (1) The defendant, via the plaintiff C, acquired an unsold apartment unit from less than 50% of the selling price, sold it to the plaintiff, and requested the plaintiff to borrow money at least 5% per month when he/she borrowed money. The plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 70 million to the defendant and lent it.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 70 million and interest or delay damages.

(2) The defendant, who became aware of the introduction of the defendant-friendly relationship, received considerable profits from resale through the business of acquiring and selling unsold apartment units, and invested the apartment acquisition fund to D and distributed profits from high rate as dividends. The plaintiff, who became aware of it, requested that D be able to invest in D's business through C, and transferred KRW 70 million to the defendant on July 25, 2008, and the defendant transferred this to D as investments.

Since October 7, 2008, the Plaintiff received 5.6 million won from D to C’s deposit account under the name of profit dividends, and the said investment principal was not re-invested to D as the acquisition fund of newly unsold apartment units.

However, as D cannot repay to the Plaintiff the investment principal of KRW 70 million due to bankruptcy, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on the ground of false loan claim.

B. (1) Judgment is made in part of the fact-finding results against E Co., Ltd. of this court.