beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 (No. 2, No. 4, and No. 3, and No. 14) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Plaintiff’s assertion (1) ① The Plaintiff loaned KRW 70 million to the Defendant upon G’s request, and the Plaintiff’s loan KRW 70 million plus KRW 70 million paid from the Defendant to D with its operating funds. Therefore, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 70 million and delay damages incurred therefrom (the Plaintiff’s primary assertion). (2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million to the Defendant under the condition that the Plaintiff will accept soil construction works among construction works under the instant contract. Accordingly, the instant contract was rescinded due to the Defendant’s fault. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion that KRW 70 million and delay damages incurred therefrom should be refunded to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment (preliminary assertion). (2) The Plaintiff’s husband, the Plaintiff’s husband, introduced D to the Defendant, and proposed the instant contract for construction works (hereinafter “the instant construction works”).
Therefore, the Plaintiff, from the beginning, imposed KRW 140 million on the Plaintiff out of KRW 500 million operating funds of the executor company, and the Defendant loaned KRW 90 million to the Plaintiff short of funds. If the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff to pay KRW 140 million operating funds of the executor company to D as the Defendant’s assertion, then there is no reason to have the Defendant first remitted the money to the Plaintiff and then let the Plaintiff pay the money to D.
② The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff lent KRW 70 million upon the request of G, but G did not have the right to borrow money on behalf of the Defendant.
(b) Judgment 1 primary.