약정금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff asserted by the parties established E Co., Ltd., and he acquired 100 million shares by contributing 5 million won to himself, and the defendants lent 45 million won to the company's capital as stated in the claim.
(Period of Performance: by 2011) The person asserts that the return is sought.
With regard to this, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff invested KRW 50 million with E’s capital, while disputing the lending of the said money.
2. In light of the following circumstances in light of the determination as to the existence of a lending agreement, the fact of lending is insufficient to recognize only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the testimony of the witness F (former G).
Witness
F testified that at the time of December 201, the Defendants testified that they would pay KRW 45 million out of the corporation’s established capital.
However, in full view of the fact that the above witness, H and the witness stated that they were unaware of the contents of share distribution among the shareholders at the time when they were almost engaged in the business, the Plaintiff stated that they invested KRW 100 million, and the above witness stated that H, a punishment by Defendant B, retired from the above company, the above company, and that H would retire, unlike the testimony, the written statement (Evidence A 2-1) states that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff, as it is difficult to accept the fact of the Defendants’ repayment agreement by the above testimony.
B. At the time of the incorporation of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, as of December 28, 201, prepared a certificate of loan with the borrower as of December 28, 201 (interest: KRW 2 million calculated by 4% per annum; due date: December 27, 2012) with respect to the instant money, the Plaintiff did not prepare a certificate of loan with interest or due date set for the instant money.
C. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the date of preparation of the company’s articles of incorporation was December 26, 201, and the date of incorporation was the 27th day of the same month, and that the due date was set by the end of 201, which was 3 and 4 days after the due date, was acceptable.