대여금
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff, on October 12, 2018, lent a total of KRW 70,000,000,000 to the Defendant on October 2012, 2018, and KRW 10,000,000,000 to the Defendant on October 20, 2018. Since the Plaintiff received reimbursement from the Defendant, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remainder loans of KRW 60,00,000,000 and the delayed damages therefrom.
In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole theory of changes, the following circumstances, i.e., documents, including the loan certificate, as asserted by the plaintiff between the plaintiff and the defendant, do not exist, and the plaintiff lent money to the defendant.
However, there is no disclosure about when the repayment period is due, when the interest rate is high, and when the interest exists. ③ The Defendant’s receipt of KRW 70,000,000 from the Plaintiff is not a monetary consumption loan, but a loan for investment in the business of starting and operating coffee stores, etc. by leasing a part of D located in Pyeongtaek-gun of Gyeonggi-do. In fact, there is a contract for investment (entry) between the Plaintiff and E, as claimed by the Defendant on December 20, 2018 between the Plaintiff and E, and there is a document of investment (entry in subparagraph 1) as claimed by the Defendant on October 20, 2018 against the Defendant of the Plaintiff.
D It seems that the Defendant’s “cat shop of D” located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do.
In full view of the credibility of the Defendant’s assertion as stated in the statement, there was a monetary consumption lending contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.
It is insufficient to view.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is rejected.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.