대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The summary of the case is the case that the plaintiff sought the return of KRW 1 billion that the plaintiff lent to the defendant's account by means of remittance.
On the premise of fact, on May 6, 2014, the remittance under the name of the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff, the sum of KRW 1 billion was deposited in the foreign exchange bank account of the defendant company (C.) on two occasions.
D, in relation to the above remittance of warrant certificates, as the Defendant’s major shareholder and actual management shareholder, provided a total of KRW 3 billion (500 million KRW 2, KRW 100 million KRW 20, KRW 1894 KRW 1,894) of the face value of the Defendant Company, a KOSDAQ-listed company, “second-time warrant certificates of bonds with warrant in the form of separation of non-guaranteed interest coupons” of the Defendant Company.
【In the absence of dispute, the grounds for recognition” did not exist, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 7, and 11; the purport of the whole pleadings; the issues of this case; the subject and nature of the party’s alleged monetary transactions (in the case of the plaintiff’s assertion 1) / The plaintiff remitted KRW 1 billion to the defendant on May 16, 2014.
[Dissenting of the Defendant] The Plaintiff’s father, E, paid the price for the warrant certificates purchased from D, and only used the name and account of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
Whether reimbursement, etc. (Dispute 2) / [The defendant's assertion] / Even if the remittance of this case is a loan to the defendant of the plaintiff, the plaintiff received approximately KRW 3 billion from D, etc., by exercising the right to receive warrant certificates in return for the amount of KRW 1 billion. In addition, since the plaintiff received KRW 740 million from D, etc. in relation to the monetary transaction of this case, the loan was fully recovered.
[Dissenting of the Plaintiff] The Plaintiff’s acquisition and exercise of the Plaintiff’s warrant certificates are separate from the repayment of KRW 1 billion loans.
The receipt of KRW 740,000,000 from D, etc. is not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the lending good faith, 723,000 won, the exercise price of KRW 723,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, to be transferred to the 1,894,00 won,