대여금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,639,535 as well as 5% per annum from November 19, 2014 to September 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff either lent money by means of remitting money to the defendant or received a loan from the loan company by the defendant and the defendant's type C (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant, etc.") at the request of the defendant and the defendant's type C (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant, etc.") on behalf of the plaintiff in the event that the defendant and C did not pay the above loan and the loan company's principal and interest on behalf of the defendant, etc., although they received a loan under the plaintiff's name, the defendant and C did not pay the loan and the loan principal and interest on behalf of the defendant, etc.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and witness C’s testimony as a whole, whether a return agreement exists, the plaintiff is not a business partnership agreement with the defendant as alleged by the defendant, but a lending company's loan obligation upon the defendant’s request by the defendant, etc., as alleged by the plaintiff, is not a business partnership agreement with the defendant.
① If the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement, they did not prepare a partnership agreement even though it was general that the partnership agreement would be prepared, and they operated the partnership with the Defendant’s business registration only under the Defendant’s name, not the Plaintiff’s name.
② The Defendant has returned some of the amount of money transferred from the Plaintiff and the amount of the loan several times, and the Defendant has received demand for repayment from the Plaintiff several times.