Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Defendant, who prepared the loan certificate and the receipt, made a receipt stating that the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million on May 27, 2009 (No. 1) and the receipt stating that the above KRW 100 million was received under the reproduction of the cashier’s checks with face value of KRW 100 million (No. 2) do not conflict between the parties.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that only the above loan certificate and receipt were prepared upon the request of C and D, and that the above money was not received, and that it was not borrowed from the plaintiff.
As to this, the plaintiff asserts that he lent the plaintiff's money to the plaintiff, and that the above loan certificate and receipt were received and delivered to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff lent it to the plaintiff.
3. Ultimately, the issue of this case is whether a lending contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is established.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 3, 4, and 5-1, and 2, C may recognize the fact that on May 27, 2009, E lent KRW 500 million to E and paid as the down payment for the acquisition of F with D and Defendant, and that C, D and Defendant prepared a loan certificate or cash custody certificate of KRW 100 million in relation to the said money and delivered it to E.
In addition, at the time of the preparation of the above-mentioned loan or loan certificate, E lends the status of the plaintiff's agent.
In addition, there is no evidence as to the fact that the above money was known to the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s money, that is, the right holder on the above loan certificate against the Defendant, that is, the right holder on the loan certificate, the right holder on the loan loan, and the right holder on the sole ground that the above money was actually possessed by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s loan certificate is insufficient to be called the Plaintiff’s creditor
Moreover, it is directly related to the fact that the said money was the Plaintiff.