대여금
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. On January 12, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on the ground of the instant claim. The Defendants asserted that the said D’s joint and several liability was jointly and severally guaranteed.
2. Therefore, according to the health unit, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including those with serial numbers), and the overall purport of testimony and pleadings by witnesses E, the plaintiff and the defendants contributed a considerable amount of money to the above D with the purpose of manufacturing, selling, etc. of spile products, anti-sprinking instruments, and sprinking instruments, etc. on August 29, 2014. The defendant Eul sent a nominal representative director to May 12, 2015 from the time the above D was established until May 12, 2015. The fact that the non-party Eul actually operated the above D's financial resources on January 2, 2015. The plaintiff explained the plaintiff and the defendants about their circumstances and requested additional contributions to them on December 12, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 133000, Feb. 30, 2015>
1. On December 12, 200, KRW 30 million, Defendant C, on January 13, 2015, remitted each amount of KRW 50 million in the name of G Co., Ltd. that he/she manages, and ④ At present, the above amount of remittance was treated as the borrowed amount by the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and appropriated it as D’s obligation. As above, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants on charges of having the Defendants lend KRW 30 million to the said D by means of false statement that the Defendants liable and repaid the said amount if the Plaintiff lent money to the said D, the Plaintiff would have the Defendants repaid the said amount of money. However, the Prosecutor filed a complaint against the Defendants on March 31, 2017 on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge the suspicion of fraud, and there is no evidence to prove this interference.
On the other hand, at the time of lending money to the above D, the plaintiff's certificate No. 2, which seems to correspond to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the above D's obligation, is the letter of evidence No. 2.