beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent KRW 19 million to the Defendant on June 21, 2012, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the said loan and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff.
C’s creditors seized the deposit in the name of C used by D and collect KRW 8 million, and the Plaintiff subrogated to D as above KRW 8 million, and thus, they seek payment of KRW 3.2 million and delay damages remaining after deducting KRW 4.8 million paid by the Defendant and C as the Plaintiff’s hospital expenses from the above KRW 8 million against the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. A. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 19 million in total with the account of his/her husband on June 20, 2012, and KRW 13 million on June 21, 2012, according to the fact that there is no dispute over the determination of the claim for a loan, the entry of Party A’s evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 6 million with the account of his/her husband on June 20, 2012, and the Defendant is recognized as the husband of Party C.
However, in this case where C received a donation of KRW 19 million from the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request and the Defendant himself asserted that it is not a debtor of the loan, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the Defendant as a debtor of the loan of KRW 19 million from the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan is without merit.
B. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for reimbursement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8 million to D in subrogation of C, and the Plaintiff did not dispute, and according to the entries in Eul 3-5 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s assertion that C used his/her account under his/her name to D, which is a third village of C, was collected from the foregoing account on April 12, 2013 by receiving a seizure collection order against C, and C promised to pay KRW 7,825,634 on April 21, 2015, and C promised to pay KRW 8 million to D on April 21, 2015. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that C, not the Defendant, is liable for the payment of the amount of reimbursement.