beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1-3, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the defendant was an agricultural partnership under the Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises (hereinafter “Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises Act”). The plaintiff received a proposal from Eul, which actually operated the defendant as its executive officer, and remitted the defendant a total of KRW 5 million to the defendant on Oct. 20, 201, and KRW 50 million on Jan. 12, 201, and the plaintiff around that time, transferred a total of KRW 2,00,000,000 to the defendant on Jan. 12, 201, and the fact that the plaintiff used the defendant's products such as 2, effective period, 1, mixing 1, electricity, 1, 2, and 2,000,000 won.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff agreed to the loan amounting to KRW 5 million, which was remitted to the Defendant, and that the loan amounting to KRW 15 million was leased by converting the value of the bread machinery, etc. into money, and that the loan amounting to KRW 70 million was leased. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for refund of KRW 70 million and payment
3. Determination
A. The fact that the plaintiff remitted 5 million won to the defendant and delivered breamer, etc. is as seen earlier.
However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in witness C’s testimony, the Plaintiff shall take over 30% of the shares of the Defendant from other members of C and transferred money to the Defendant, or delivered bread machinery. The Plaintiff transferred money or taken office as the Defendant’s director on November 30, 2010 at the time of transfer of her bread machinery, etc., which is the time when the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant or transferred her bread machinery, etc., and has maintained the status of the Defendant’s director up to now. The Plaintiff did not separately set the loan certificate when the Plaintiff remitted money