대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.
3...
1. Basic facts
A. C Co., Ltd. issued the Promissory Notes Co., Ltd. at the face value of 30,00,000 won on October 20, 2008, the due date of 10,009, and the due date of 10,009, and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”). The Defendant endorsed the Promissory Notes on the back side of the Promissory Notes, whichever is later, in the first endorsement column, and the Plaintiff currently holds the Promissory Notes.
B. On October 23, 2008, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 26,640,00 to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff was the managing director of Plaintiff D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). The Defendant, around 2008, contracted the construction to Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) under the name of Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and received the instant promissory note as the relevant construction cost.
On October 23, 2008, the Defendant rendered endorsement to the Plaintiff on the Promissory Notes in this case, and subsequently borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff as security.
(4) However, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the above loan principal of KRW 30,00,00,000 and damages for delay thereof, which are calculated as KRW 37,333 per day from the above loan date until the above payment date. Thus, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the above loan principal of KRW 30,00,000 and damages for delay.
B. The non-party company, the actual representative of the Plaintiff, subcontracted part of the construction work contracted by C to the Defendant around September 2008.
C A. The non-party company delivered the instant promissory note to the Defendant as the contract price.
The Defendant endorsed the Promissory Notes in the instant case, and tried to pay personnel expenses, etc. at discount. The Defendant returned the Promissory Notes to the Nonparty Company as it is, and received the said KRW 26,640,000 from the Plaintiff as the payment for the construction work.
Therefore, the plaintiff's request cannot be complied with on a different premise.
3. The above-mentioned basic facts and Gap 2.