가수금반환
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The plaintiff's assertion was held as the vice-chairperson of the defendant around March 2009.
At the time of the plaintiff's employment, the defendant suffered managerial difficulties to the extent that the employee's benefits could not be paid from time.
Accordingly, on May 19, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million from C, the Plaintiff’s land, and then transferred KRW 30 million to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant (the Bank, the Bank, the Account Number: D). The remaining KRW 70 million was paid by the Plaintiff as a check from C and deposited into the deposit account in the name of the Defendant (the Bank, the Account Number: E).
In addition, on July 28, 2009, the Plaintiff paid the provisional payment to the Defendant by depositing KRW 150 million in the deposit account (Korean bank, account number: F) in the name of the Defendant.
However, the Defendant paid only the Plaintiff, KRW 15 million on July 29, 2009, KRW 26.25 million on August 26, 2009, and KRW 42 million on September 23, 2009, and did not repay the remainder KRW 28 million.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of 28 billion won and damages for delay.
2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in full view of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire argument in witness G testimony, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare a monetary loan agreement or a loan certificate, which is a basic disposition document regarding loans between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to each of the provisional payments claimed by the Plaintiff, ② the Plaintiff was in office as the vice-chairperson of the Defendant at the time, was in fact representing the Defendant, ③ there was no substantial business activity of the Plaintiff, and ③ around May 2009, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff paid the provisional payments, and thus, it is difficult to view that it was necessary to operate large amounts of funds as alleged by the Plaintiff. ④ The seller of the Defendant share transfer contract is K, but in fact, the Defendant.