beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of developing the radio-power transmission technology, etc., and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing the electric device parts.
B. On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entrusted a notary public with the preparation of a notarial deed on a fair and comprehensive official certificate 114, a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) No. 229 of the 2012, stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 150,000,000 from the Defendant on May 18, 2012, interest rate of KRW 8.5% per annum (25% per annum per annum), due date for repayment, September 30, 2012, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform his/her obligation to return the principal and interest, it shall be recognized that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution.”
C. Based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order on August 26, 2013 with regard to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Industrial Bank of Korea, as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2013TTTT 7373, using the claimed amount as KRW 173,206,845, and issued a seizure and collection order on August 23, 2013 with regard to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Industrial Bank of Korea, etc. as the amount of KRW 185,034,00,000, and issued a seizure and collection order on September 11, 2013 with regard to the Plaintiff’s lease deposit claims against polymmmmt Engineering, etc. as the amount of KRW 185,034,00,000 for the claim amount as to the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Electric Construction Financial Cooperative of Suwon District Court.
[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1-2, Gap evidence No. 5, Gap evidence No. 10-1, 2, and 3
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not actually lend KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s 150,000,000 won paid to the Plaintiff at the time, is able to subsidize the development cost of the products to be exhibited by the Plaintiff while participating in 2012 ELEO.