양수금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to the cause of claim Gap 1-1, 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, and 3, upon the defendant's request by the representative director D, C may, upon the defendant's request, transfer the above amount of KRW 70 million to the defendant's account under the defendant's name, and then transfer the amount of KRW 1.2,00 million to the defendant's account under the defendant's name, ② the amount of KRW 1.5 million on December 29, 2006; ③ the amount of KRW 8.5 million on January 5, 2007; ④ the amount of KRW 2,00,000 on April 27, 2007; ⑤ the amount of KRW 6.4 million on August 6, 2007; and ⑤ the amount of KRW 7,00,000 on December 27, 2007; and thus, the Defendant loaned the remaining amount of KRW 1.36 million on 1.4 million.2 million.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of 60 million won (=70 million won - 10 million won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 3, 2014 to the day of full payment, as claimed by the plaintiff, following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case.
As to the defendant's assertion on investment, the defendant argues that ① KRW 20 million, which was remitted from C on October 31, 2005, is not borrowed, but Eul, who is the wife of C, is paid to acquire 40 million shares of the defendant.
According to the statements in Eul 2-1 and 2-2, the defendant's chief director of the account may recognize the fact that the amount of KRW 20 million received from C is expected to be converted to investments, and that E, around 2006, acquired shares 40 million by transfer of shares of the defendant. However, the fact that the above fact alone was recognized cannot be deemed to have been delivered as the name of investment after following the fact that the amount was transferred as of October 31, 2005.
First of all, the head of the above Account shall not be deemed to have an investment agreement at the time of remitting the said money, but rather, as stated in the “passing money.”
In addition, there is no data supporting that E is a wife, and there is no data.