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 remitted total of KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant account, KRW 50,000,000 on August 29, 2014, and KRW 20,000 on December 15, 2014.
B. Around December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a certificate of borrowing from C to the effect that “the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 70,000,000 from the Plaintiff” (Evidence A 3; hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).
The loan certificate of this case is written as "B (Defendant) agent C", and only C's seal is affixed next thereto, and the defendant's letter is not affixed.
The above loan certificate was accompanied by the defendant's certificate of seal impression issued on September 24, 2014 and a copy of the defendant's identification card.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1-2, Gap’s evidence 3-5, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the decision-making on the claim for a loan (which is the principal claim) lent the above KRW 70,000 to the defendant.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that there is no money borrowed from the plaintiff, and that there is only a money to be repaid by C, and that there is no fact that C has delegated the right to prepare the instant loan certificate to C.
The loan certificate of this case does not have the defendant's seal affixed to the loan certificate of this case, and there is no power of attorney to delegate the preparation of the loan certificate of this case to C. The loan certificate of this case is accompanied by the defendant's certificate of seal impression and identification card. However, although the loan certificate of this case was issued on December 15, 2014, the loan certificate of this case was issued on September 24, 2014.
In addition, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 through 6, evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 12-2, Eul evidence Nos. 17, Eul evidence Nos. 18-2, Eul evidence Nos. 23-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 26-2, Eul evidence Nos. 23-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 29, comprehensively taking into account the whole purport of testimony and oral argument of Eul’s witness Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s witness No. 29, the defendant is on the land Do (hereinafter referred to as "Yong-gu, Dok-