대여금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion: ① on October 13, 2005, KRW 15 million; ② on May 25, 2006, KRW 30 million; ③ from February 7, 2006, to June 7, 2006, KRW 40 million (=on February 5, 2006, KRW 4 million (on April 5, 2006, KRW 1 million) loaned to Defendant B, his/her father, his/her wife, KRW 85 million (on April 26, 2006, KRW 1 million).
On the other hand, the defendants are jointly and severally liable with the defendant C, since the plaintiff lent the above money to the management fund of the gold-type design business entity operated by the defendant C or the defendant's house purchase fund.
Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 80 million and damages for delay for which the Plaintiff seeks partial payment.
2. According to the reasoning of each reply to the order to submit financial transaction information to the E Bank, the plaintiff received a loan of KRW 15 million from the E Bank on October 13, 2005, KRW 84 million from D on April 20, 2006, and the fact that the plaintiff deposited KRW 40 million in the Defendant’s account in total from February 7, 2006 to June 7, 2006 is recognized.
However, the following facts are alleged as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number in case of additional numbers), each of the following facts acknowledged as a result of response to the order to submit financial transaction information to the F Bank of this Court, and G Bank, and each of the response to the order to submit financial transaction information to G Bank, i.e., ① the plaintiff, as of October 13, 2005, and 30 million won as of May 25, 2006, by obtaining a loan from E Bank or D as above from the plaintiff and lent it to the defendant Eul, but there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff paid the above money to the defendant Eul around the above lending date. However, there is no objective evidence to support that the plaintiff paid the above money to the defendant Eul, even according to the details of transactions between the plaintiff and the defendants arranged in the preparatory document as of December 18, 2018.