beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff’s name: (a) deposited KRW 1 billion in total twice in the foreign exchange bank account (Account Number:N) of the Defendant (Co., Ltd.) on two occasions on May 16, 2014.
B. On May 16, 2014, the president of each account, which is the Defendant’s account book, stated that the deposit of KRW 1 billion was made by designating the customer as the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff.
C. On February 2, 2015, E, his father, as the Plaintiff’s agent, prepared a receipt to receive KRW 100 million as a part of the repayment of the loan in the instant case (Seoul Central District Court 2014 tea 255270) before the instant case was performed as a lawsuit, and issued it to the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul witness E, part of the testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. (1) With respect to the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Plaintiff’s summary of the claim is the cause of the instant claim, and the Plaintiff’s summary of the claim is KRW 1 billion to the Defendant on May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant claim”).
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s father E does not lend to the Defendant the key money to the Defendant, but the Plaintiff’s father E does not lend the money to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s father E does not lend the money to the Defendant’s previous actual management proprietor D the sum of the face value of the Defendant’s “the warrant right of the second non-registered bonds with warrant” (50 million won right 2, 100 million won right, 20 won right, 1,894 won value, hereinafter “instant securities”).
(2) The Plaintiff’s claim of this case based on a different premise is without merit, along with the facts acknowledged earlier, and the witness F of the first instance trial, who arranged the transaction of the key money, testified that the Plaintiff lent the key money to the Defendant, and submitted a factual confirmation (Evidence A7) to the same effect, and based on the written evidence Nos. 3 through 7, the Plaintiff is at issue.