대여금
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. The plaintiff A and the defendant operated the plaintiff corporation B (hereinafter "the plaintiff corporation") with his/her own business and lent KRW 172 million to the defendant, and the defendant refused to comply with the plaintiff's request for repayment of the loan. On the other hand, the plaintiff Gap and the defendant agreed to liquidate the partnership relationship, and the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the loan KRW 172 million, the liquidation money of KRW 15 million, and the delay damages for the above money to the plaintiff corporation.
The Plaintiffs asserted that KRW 50 million, out of KRW 172 million in the preparatory document dated September 18, 2017, was the amount invested by Plaintiff A’s partner, and that the remaining KRW 122,00,000 is the personal loan of Plaintiff A, and that the amount of KRW 50,000,000 in the Plaintiff’s investment should be settled, did not clearly alter the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim.
2. Determination
A. According to the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s argument as to the Plaintiff’s argument, the Plaintiff’s wife A’s wife: (a) KRW 20 million on Jan. 22, 2009; (b) KRW 20 million on Jun. 5, 2009; (c) KRW 10 million on Jun. 9, 2009; and (d) KRW 20 million on Nov. 13, 2009; (b) KRW 10 million on Sept. 6, 2010; and (c) KRW 8 million on the same day to the Defendant; and (d) KRW 30 million on Jan. 20, 201; and (e) KRW 30 million on Jan. 20, 201; and (e) KRW 30 million on the same day to the Defendant on Nov. 25, 201; and (e) KRW 200 million on each of the Plaintiff’s accounts.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the above remittance is a nominal loan to the Defendant of Plaintiff A.
Plaintiff
A’s assertion cannot be accepted.
B. Each of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number) against the Plaintiff Company’s assertion is written to the Defendant by itself.