beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.09.24 2015가합31490

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff filed a loan claim against Defendant B, as the Plaintiff lent KRW 270,721,40 to Defendant B from October 7, 201 to September 7, 2012, and Defendant B is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants, who filed a claim for damages due to a tort against the Defendants, borrowed KRW 270,721,400 from the Plaintiff in spite of the Plaintiff’s intent or ability to repay the damages even if they borrowed money from the Plaintiff.

In addition, for the purpose of not paying the above money, the Defendants registered Defendant B as the representative director, and Defendant C as a director of the intra-company company (hereinafter “D”) as the representative director of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on April 19, 2013 after the closure of business on or around March 19, 2013, and succeeded to the construction that had been subcontracted prior to the closure of D and did not pay the money borrowed from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 270,721,400, and damages for delay due to the tort committed by fraud.

2. Determination

A. There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff lent KRW 270,721,40 to Defendant B, as a loan claim against Defendant B.

Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers) and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff has transferred the sum of KRW 270,721,400,00 to D's Han Bank Account on October 7, 201, KRW 74,471,400 on October 24, 201, KRW 44,250,000 on October 31, 201, and KRW 53,200,000 on July 5, 2012, and KRW 43,00,000,000 on September 7, 2012, and each of the above money was transferred from D's name and KRW 270,721,40 on September 7, 201 (the above money was transferred from D's name and KRW 270,721,000 on October 7, 201, respectively).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against Defendant B is without merit.

B. We examine the claims against the Defendants for damages caused by the tort, Gap, Eul, and Eul.