대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.
Since 2008, the plaintiff paid money to the defendant and collected the strike and the strike from the defendant's production process.
On July 31, 2013, the defendant lent KRW 120 million to the defendant at the defendant's request, and the defendant's strike and strike were collected as the interest.
Since the above loan 120 million won was not fixed and the repayment period has arrived as the plaintiff demanded the return of the loan, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the above loan 120 million won and the delay damages.
2. According to the records, etc. in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant prepared a "vehicle No. 1" (Evidence No. 1) with the following contents to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff paid KRW 120 million to the defendant.
The amount of a loan certificate: (a) the sum of the above amounts specified in Won 120,000,000 shall be paid in full; (b) the interest shall be replaced by the marg and the marging.
On 31, 2013. 31. 31. 31. 201, the plaintiff paid to the defendant by E, the representative director CD director, and further, the amount of KRW 120,000,000 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is considered
In the course of production, a company that engages in textile manufacturing and sales business, etc., the Defendant was dispatched and sold, and the Plaintiff purchased a separate payment from around 2008 to the Defendant on July 31, 2013, and the Plaintiff was not paid a separate payment and continued to be supplied from the Defendant to the date of strike and selling. In light of the above long-term continuous business relationship, etc., even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not separately prepare a contract for the supply of strike and the land, it can be deemed that there was a continuous contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the supply of the land, even if the Plaintiff did not prepare a separate contract for the supply of the strike and the land, and that there was a continuous contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the supply of the land.