투자금 반환 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff's assertion on the cause of the claim is the defendant's wife C, who makes an investment in real estate by receiving a successful bid of real estate through a real estate auction with the defendant's wife C, and the defendant's husband and wife recommended the plaintiff, etc. to make an investment in auction of non-D No. 106 and No. 107 of non-D, E, No. 1 E, and other real estate (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") and other real estate at the time of Sin
Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 50 million to the Defendant after disposing of the instant real estate at a successful bid, with an investment agreement that the Defendant would pay KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff after disposing of the instant real estate.
On June 9, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant through the account of Nonparty C. However, on April 2, 2009, the Defendant drafted an agreement with the Plaintiff, a joint investor, to receive a loan of KRW 250 million in the name of the Defendant on April 2, 2009, which did not trade the instant real estate, and to pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, F, each of which is a joint investor, and to pay KRW 50 million to G (see evidence 5).
Therefore, according to the above agreement, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the investment amount of KRW 50 million and damages for delay.
Judgment
With respect to whether the Defendant agreed to return the above investment amount to the Plaintiff, it is difficult to believe that the entry of the evidence No. 9, which seems consistent with it, is as is, and according to the statement No. 5, the Defendant is merely stated in the above agreement as a “person under a name of loan,” and even according to its language, it is insufficient to deem that the Defendant is liable to return the investment amount to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, in full view of the statement of No. 7, witness C’s testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings, it appears that the Defendant did not directly explain the investment to the Plaintiff, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against C, other than the Defendant, seeking the return of the above investment amount around May 2009.
The conclusion is.