대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Basic facts
A. On February 27, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the account in the name of C, KRW 20 million on May 29, 2012, and KRW 70 million on November 26, 2012.
B. Around April 2013, the Plaintiff received, from C, a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) issued on April 8, 2013, the issue date of which was KRW 100 million, and April 8, 2014, at the issue date, from C and its spouse as the issuer.
C. The Plaintiff did not have any actual contact with the Defendant, and C and the Defendant divorced on September 10, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant jointly borrowed KRW 100 million from the plaintiff and issued and delivered the Promissory Notes to secure this. The defendant shall pay the above KRW 100 million to the plaintiff and its delay damages.
B. In light of the following circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant jointly borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff and issued and delivered the Promissory Notes to secure this, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Rather, the Plaintiff lent KRW 85 million to C, not the Defendant, and it seems that C was forged as if it issued the Promissory Notes.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.
1) On January 23, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that C lent KRW 100 million, the par value of the said Promissory Notes, which is the date of issuance of the said Promissory Notes, to C, on April 8, 2013, and filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of KRW 100 million and the damages for delay thereof (U.S. District Court Decision 2018Da102577, Jun. 22, 2018, the Plaintiff’s claim against C was filed with the Government District Court Decision 2013Do3292, Sept. 4, 2015).