대여금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 6, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the account of C. In relation to the said money, the Plaintiff prepared an investment contract on December 6, 2007 between the Defendant, C and C, stating that “The Defendant invested KRW 30 million to C, the investment principal is returned to the Defendant at the same time as the investment contract is terminated, and the obligation of C is jointly and severally guaranteed by D.” On December 10, 2007, the Plaintiff signed a written certificate of the said investment contract as the debtor and D’s representative.
B. On December 14, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40 million to C’s account. With respect to the said money, the Plaintiff drafted the investment contract on December 14, 2007 between the Defendant, C, and D stating that “the Defendant invests KRW 40 million in C and D, and the principal of the investment is terminated, and at the same time, returned to the Defendant.”
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff asserted that he lent the above KRW 70 million to the account designated by the defendant at the defendant's request while lending the above KRW 70 million to the defendant (hereinafter "the money of this case"). Since KRW 26.2 million out of the money of this case was repaid by the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining loans and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion of this case is that the plaintiff lent the money to C as investment deposit, and the defendant merely lent the creditor's name at the plaintiff's request. Thus, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.
3. The facts that the instant monetary amount constitutes a loan and that the Plaintiff is in the position of the lender do not dispute between the parties, but it is only the dispute between the lender and the Defendant and C, and therefore, whether the Plaintiff is in the position of the borrower is in the position of the borrower.
In this regard, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 3-1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 13.