beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 21, 2010 to February 16, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence 1 to Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 11, and each statement in Eul evidence 11 is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and each statement in Eul evidence 7, Eul 10, and Eul evidence 12 shall not interfere with the above recognition.
(1) In around 2009, the Defendant became aware of Nonparty C who had been engaged in the same kind of urban development project as an agent, while preparing for the implementation of the project by proxy of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D Urban Development Project (hereinafter “D Urban Development Project”).
(2) While discussing not only D urban development projects, but also E projects that C originally promoted, etc., the Defendant requested C to inquire about the place where the Defendant sought funds to receive the D urban development project execution agency project, and C introduced the Plaintiff, who is a branch, to the Defendant.
(3) On September 15, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan”) as required by the Defendant, and the Defendant used the above KRW 30 million as office rent, name-making cost, etc. for the execution of D Urban Development Project.
(4) On the other hand, under the premise that C is to participate as a partner in its own and D urban development project execution agency business, the Defendant produced name C, as the representative director of the agency company that the Defendant promoted, and as the vice president of the agency company, and gave C with it. However, C did not participate any further without making any investment to determine that the above execution agency business promoted by the Defendant has no feasibility.
(5) After the lapse of about one year from the date of the instant lending, the Plaintiff was on September 201, which was around September 1, 201.