beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s obligation to pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on May 10, 2012 does not exist.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. On May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted the cause of the Plaintiff’s principal claim and the counterclaim, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5,000,000 from the Defendant, and repaid that on December 10, 2012.
However, as the defendant is disputing this, it is sought to confirm that there is no loan obligation of KRW 5,00,000 on May 10, 2012 against the defendant.
B. On May 10, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted as to the cause of the counterclaim and the principal lawsuit was not the Defendant but C, and the Defendant borrowed 5,000,000,000 from C. Since the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s above obligation to C, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant as the amount of indemnity.
In addition, there is no fact that the defendant received the above money from the plaintiff.
2. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously to be judged.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), the fact that the loan certificate was prepared between the plaintiff and the defendant that "C lent KRW 5,000,000 to the plaintiff on May 10, 2012, and the defendant provided a joint and several surety therefor" was remitted from the account in the name of the plaintiff to the account in the name of the plaintiff on May 10, 2012.
However, in full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 5 and the argument, the defendant filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff on May 10, 2012 on the ground that "the defendant lent KRW 5,00,000 to the plaintiff on May 10, 2012, but the plaintiff did not repay it to the plaintiff," and on December 10, 2012, the plaintiff received the amount of KRW 9,340,000 as "the plaintiff had to pay it to D," and on the same day, it can be recognized that the defendant met the defendant. In addition, the above facts of recognition, when the defendant lent money to the plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case and filed a criminal complaint with the investigative agency for fraud, the defendant lent money to the plaintiff, and he/she provided joint and several sureties.