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. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s bank deposit account. On February 19, 2017, the Defendant transferred KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff’s bank deposit account.
B. On July 7, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s bank deposit account, and KRW 50 million on July 8, 2017, respectively. The Defendant transferred KRW 28 million to the Plaintiff’s bank deposit account on February 6, 2018 and KRW 7 million on February 26, 2018, respectively.
[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including virtual number)
2. The assertion and judgment
A. Either party’s assertion 1) The Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 65 million and the delay damages therefrom, since the Plaintiff lent the said money by means of transferring the Defendant’s account that requires business funds for the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion to the Defendant’s account. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 65 million and the delay damages therefrom. (ii) The amount transferred to the Defendant’s account by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account is merely the following investments, not the loans under a monetary loan agreement
① The amount of KRW 50 million transferred on February 17, 2017 is part of the amount loaned to C by the Plaintiff to lend money to C with the Defendant and to receive high interest rate with the Plaintiff.
The Defendant agreed to receive an investment of KRW 20 million among the above money, and returned the remainder of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, and the sum of KRW 20 million invested by the Plaintiff and KRW 45 million created by the Defendant was leased to C in total of KRW 65 million.
② The sum of KRW 80 million transferred on July 7, 2017 and July 8, 2017 is the money invested by the Plaintiff in acquiring and operating a leap business with the Defendant, “E” in Mucompo-gu D.
B. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that there is the number of money between the parties to the judgment, the reason that the plaintiff received it is a monetary loan for consumption, and the defendant, if he contests the cause of the receipt, is given and received due to the loan for consumption.