어음금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On November 16, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant’s husband, with the terms of KRW 1,350,000,000, the Plaintiff purchased “E” (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) located outside D, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant cartel”).
B. In the lawsuit seeking delivery, etc. against F, a lessee of the instant Moel (this Court 201Gahap20759), this court rendered a judgment dismissing the part, etc. seeking delivery of the instant Mourel among the claim filed by C on July 4, 2012.
C. On July 13, 2012, the Defendant issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 30,000,000 and the due date as of July 28, 2012 to the Plaintiff.
The instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and C was terminated by agreement around September 2012.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The assertion;
A. On July 13, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendant. On the same day, the Defendant issued the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff on the ground that the obligation to return the loan was a causal relation with the obligation to return the loan, and thus, the Defendant is liable to return the loan or to pay the Promissory Notes.
B. The Defendant did not borrow KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff introduced G to the Defendant, and offered that “If the Plaintiff pays KRW 30,00,000 to the G, it may promptly deliver the instant mother in the India lawsuit through an unlawful means.” The Defendant issued the instant promissory note to the Plaintiff with the purport that “if the Plaintiff is promptly delivered the instant mother, by means of a proposal made by the Plaintiff, it would pay KRW 30,000,00 to the Plaintiff.” The Defendant received the instant mother telecom through a legitimate trial procedure, not through the Plaintiff’s proposal.
Therefore, the defendant.