대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff remitted the defendant's bank account totaling KRW 39,96,000,000 to the defendant's bank account using the agricultural bank account in the name of C, and KRW 39,96,000,00,000, in total, via the defendant's bank account in the name of C.
(hereinafter the above KRW 39,96,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant money”) 2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent the money of this case at the defendant's request, and sought refund of the above money and payment of damages for delay against the defendant.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the above money was paid as the acquisition price of human resources company operated by himself/herself rather than the loan, so the defendant has no reason to return the above money to the plaintiff
B. As acknowledged earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant money to the Defendant is a loan by nature, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
In addition, the Plaintiff did not assert that the instant monetary amount was a loan, and did not assert that the payment period or interest agreement was due, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is very exceptional that the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant for about one year prior to the Plaintiff’s payment and lent the money from approximately KRW 40 million without the agreement on interest payment without preparing the loan certificate. Although there was no proof as to the existence or transfer of the human resources company it was operated by the Defendant, the Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff was recommended to acquire the human resources company by means of repayment after lending the instant monetary amount, and that there was no dispute between the parties as to the existence of the human resources company itself, it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s lending of the instant monetary amount to the Defendant.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.