beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.12.18 2013가단4060

대여금 등

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 and its annual rate from January 12, 2013 to December 18, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 8, 2009, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and transferred KRW 20 million on April 4, 2012.

B. On September 11, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 6 million to the Defendant KRW 50 million in total, and KRW 50 million on September 12, 2012. On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 200 from the Defendant around September 26, 2012.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Defendant’s failure to pay the amount of KRW 50 million on June 8, 2009, KRW 10 million on July 2009 through August 20, 2009, KRW 80 million on April 4, 2012, and KRW 80 million on April 20, 2012.

In addition, on September 2012, the Plaintiff calculated KRW 200,000 per Defendant and Backs (C) as KRW 50,000 per unit and received KRW 50,000,000,000 in total, and deposited KRW 50,000 on September 11, 2012 and September 12, 2012, but the Defendant supplied KRW 200,000,000,000,000 out of the advance payment, thereby demanding the return of KRW 10,000,000 from the advance payment.

3. Determination

A. On June 8, 2009, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment on the claim for a loan of KRW 50 million on June 8, 2009 to the Defendant on June 8, 2009 is identical to the above basic facts.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the above KRW 50 million was a loan, while the defendant argued that the business of the company "D company" operated by the defendant at the time is well-grounded, the defendant invested on the condition that the business of the company is different.

First of all, as to whether the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff on June 8, 2009 is a loan or an investment amount, the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: ① the Plaintiff did not separately prepare a loan certificate at the time of remitting KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s bank account on June 8, 2009, but the original Defendant was known from around 2004 to the Defendant.