약정금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff by March 30, 2014, and presented as evidence Gap evidence No. 2 (hereinafter “the instant payment rejection”). However, the “user” column of the instant payment rejection includes “C representative director D,” and the name seal of C representative director is affixed to D, and the Defendant is either the borrower or the payer pursuant to the instant payment note, and does not include the content that he/she shall pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff as the payer. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff around January 7, 2014 is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had agreed to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not have any other reasons.
As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that C is obligated to pay KRW 20,000,00 as the borrower, although C has the external form of the company, it is substantially limited to the Defendant’s personal business. However, each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 7 was mixed to the extent that it is difficult to distinguish between the Defendant and C at the time when the instant payment note was prepared.
In light of the degree of the C’s insolvency of capital, the scale of business and the number of employees, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that the company was only the name of the company and was punished to the extent that the company was not in a state of personal business, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without any need to further examine the remainder of the issue.
2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is different from this conclusion.