대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a loan of KRW 40 million and its delay damages, since he/she lent a total of KRW 40 million to the defendant or a third party designated by the defendant for investment.
According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff is the defendant of August 18, 2009, KRW 6 million, KRW 4 million on the 19th of the same month, and the same year.
9. It is recognized that the remittance of KRW 40 million in total, including KRW 10 million, to C and D on July 1, 200 and October 9 of the same year (hereinafter “instant dispute settlement”).
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the instant dispute funds to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion otherwise.
Rather, the statement Nos. 1 through 11 (including the serial number) shows the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s recommendation, made profits from the transaction of stocks or convertible bonds through E and remitted this to the Defendant, and the Defendant wired this to E. The Defendant: (2) the Plaintiff was unable to return the investment amount due to delisting, etc.; (3) the Plaintiff made a complaint by deceiving the Defendant that he would make a high dividend through stock investment; and (2) the Plaintiff received the instant dispute funds by deceiving the Defendant to make a high dividend through stock investment; and (3) on March 31, 2016, by receiving the instant dispute funds; and (4) it was suspected that the Defendant submitted data corresponding to it, on the ground that he/she had also trusted the horses of E and remitted the investment money.
The plaintiff seems to have invested the dispute settlement fund of this case in E through the defendant for the short-term purpose of earning high interest rate.
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant agreed to return KRW 10 million out of the dispute amount of the dispute amount of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.