대여금 반환 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff married with Nonparty C (hereinafter “former”) and divorced on September 4, 2014.
Before the Plaintiff’s divorce with the former wife, the Plaintiff provided a teaching system with the Defendant, and the CCTV installed in the Plaintiff’s home taken the form of the CCTV installed with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff demanded that the former wife pay five million won to the Plaintiff and three million won to the Defendant as consolation money in return for the divorce between the former wife and the Defendant. The Plaintiff and the Defendant received loans from each party and paid eight million won to the former wife around April 2014.
On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred three million won to the Defendant.
【Reasons for Recognition: The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff received the refund of the deposit for the deposit for the deposit prior to the collection of the deposit and lent three million won among them to the Defendant, which the Defendant lent to the Defendant, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid three million won of the loan to the Plaintiff as follows.
Then, on March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff lent 3 million won to the Defendant according to the promise, but the Defendant refused payment, such as no contact with the Plaintiff and no contact with the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 3 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
B. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff had completed the agreement with the former wife, and the former wife demanded 5 million won to the Plaintiff and 3 million won to the Defendant with the agreement on the crime of adultery, and all of the Plaintiff paid the said money.
On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff asked to lend three million won to the Plaintiff, and received a loan from a foreign exchange bank and remitted it to the Plaintiff’s former wife.
After March 20, 2015, three million won was returned from the Plaintiff.
3. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount of three million won, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant on March 20, 2015, is the amount of money lent. In light of the following, it is difficult to recognize that the said money is a loan.