대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 15, 2016, the Defendant was issued a note of payment for the construction cost (hereinafter “B payment note”) with the purport that “B and C, a guarantor and joint guarantor, shall pay KRW 30 million until November 20, 2016,” from Non-Party B (hereinafter “B”) and Non-Party C, a representative director of B.
B. On November 15, 2016, the Defendant drafted a statement of payment in writing stating that “In the event that the guarantor B and the joint and several surety C on the B Payment Forms fail to pay KRW 30 million until November 20, 2016, the Defendant shall, within 15 days after the completion of the loan, write down a statement of payment in writing (hereinafter “Defendant’s payment note”).
C. On November 16, 2016, the Plaintiff received the payment note B and the Defendant’s payment note from the Defendant, and deposited KRW 30 million in the deposit account in the Defendant’s name.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3-1 and 6-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the guarantor B and joint and several sureties in B’s letter of payment, the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff until November 20, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff according to the agreement stipulated in the Defendant’s letter of payment.
Therefore, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s payment angle only stated that “B and C shall pay KRW 30 million to IM cases in the event of nonperformance of obligation,” and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that on November 16, 2016, the Defendant lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant, but in light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 6 are alone.