대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff and the Defendant claimed each loan as a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim. The first instance court dismissed both the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and the Defendant’s counterclaim.
Since the plaintiff appealed against this, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the main part of the lawsuit.
2. Facts of recognition;
A. From December 6, 2006 to February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 310,361,500 in total to the Defendant’s account by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s husband E’s account, the Plaintiff’s principal account, and F, the Plaintiff’s seat, as indicated in the [Attachment] claim for rent (the Plaintiff’s obligee, the Defendant, and the Defendant).
B. On July 17, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account via the Plaintiff’s account (hereinafter “C”) and KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account on April 10, 2009, using D’s account, the Plaintiff’s seat.
【Recognition of Fact-finding】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
3. The party's assertion and judgment
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, as seen above, lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 330,361,500 (= KRW 310,361,500 KRW 10 million) from December 6, 2006 to February 21, 2012, as the Plaintiff asserted, by remitting the Defendant’s account (= KRW 310,361,500 KRW 10 million).
B) However, the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 176,526,100 out of the above loans. Meanwhile, the Defendant remitted KRW 330,361,50 out of the above loans 1 to the Defendant to the Defendant 330,361,500,000 from the Plaintiff’s fraternity and the sales proceeds of agricultural products purchased from the Defendant (this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that “30,361,500,000 won out of KRW 3330,361,50,000 which was remitted to the Defendant by the Plaintiff is not remitted to the Defendant as a loan,” and it is correct to deem that “the Plaintiff accurately lent the Plaintiff’s assertion under the above paragraph 1 to the Defendant (= KRW 330,361,500,000).”