beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The primary argument is that the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, who reads the Plaintiff as follows: “The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100 million for damages incurred by the tort and damages for delay, on the ground that: “The Defendant, by lending KRW 90,000 to C Hospital President D, would have the Plaintiff receive KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the hospital’s pharmacy, and would not only have the right to supply medical instruments, but also have the right
B. Preliminary Defendant agreed to pay KRW 100,000,000,000 that the Plaintiff leased to D, to pay KRW 100,000,00 to the Plaintiff, including the principal and interest, by transferring the loan owned by the Plaintiff to the payment in kind, etc.
2. Determination
A. According to Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 10 (including paper numbers) and witness evidence D’s testimony as to the primary argument, the plaintiff loaned KRW 90 million to D at the defendant’s request by means of remitting KRW 90 million to D’s account of D’s creditors E on May 31, 2012. The plaintiff is holding one copy of the check number as indicated on August 31, 2012, D carries KRW 10 million at the face value of D issuance, KRW 100 million on the date of payment, and KRW 10 million on the number of units as indicated on August 31, 2012. D was insolvent on or around August 22, 2012, and it is recognized that the plaintiff has a statement of transactions, such as medical appliances, etc. on November 2012 to G’s hospital.
However, in full view of the evidence and the overall purport of the arguments mentioned above, the following circumstances are as follows: (i) the Plaintiff did not verify the right to supply or sell medical instruments while providing meals with D after lending money; (ii) the transaction statement held by the Plaintiff was at the point of time five months or after the date of lending money; (iii) there is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant anticipated D’s default at the time of soliciting the Plaintiff to lend money; and (iv) lending money.