약정금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On May 23, 2005, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 100 million to the Defendant and to receive KRW 200 million until September 23, 2005, which was four months later. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff was liable to pay KRW 150 million out of the remainder of KRW 150 million, and delay damages therefrom. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 18740, Mar. 28, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 18747, Mar. 29, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 18747, Aug. 5, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 18758, Sep. 5, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 17507, Sep. 25, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 17508, Sep. 23, 2007>
In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 1 and the fact finding about new bank of this court, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the witness Eul's testimony and the whole purport of arguments, the following circumstances, namely, ① there is no loan certificate of KRW 100 million between Won and the defendant around May 23, 2005, ② according to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendant around May 23, 2005, the plaintiff's deposit account No. 100 million was withdrawn as a check (the check No. D and E 50 million won). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above check was paid to the defendant, ③ there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff lent KRW 500 million to the defendant about eight years after the date of lease, ③ there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the defendant on June 5, 2013, and no evidence No. 300 million was presented to the defendant No. 505 billion won.