beta
Text
The claim of this case is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In the process of accepting D cafeteria in 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff leased KRW 18.2 million to the Defendant on August 30, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant 1 loan”); (b) the Plaintiff leased KRW 1,1450,000 to the Defendant three times from March 5, 2019 to May 14, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “instant 2 loan”); and (c) the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,500 to the Defendant on February 18, 2019 under the pretext of participation in E 20,000,50 won in the capital increase (hereinafter referred to as “instant 3 loan”); and (d) the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant paid the remainder of KRW 48,550,500,000 after deducting the repaid KRW 11,1100,000,000 per annum.
2. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 1,3950,000 to the Defendant account 17 times from March 5, 2019 to May 14, 2019, and received KRW 2.5 million from the Defendant account; the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 2,50,000 to the Defendant account on February 18, 2019; and the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 18,200,000 to the F, G, and the Defendant account from March 27, 2019 to April 30, 2019.
However, in view of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
① In light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Plaintiff primarily traded with the Defendant’s husband C, and that C used the account under the name of the Defendant and other family members due to bad credit standing, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff was a loan to the Defendant solely on the ground that the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant.
② The Plaintiff does not seem to have a special relationship with the Defendant, not C. Therefore, the Plaintiff does not receive a total of KRW 40,000,000 from the Defendant repeatedly without receiving any loan certificate.