beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) C as a partner of D (the father of the Defendant) on January 15, 2002, C was appointed as the representative director of the Plaintiff on January 15, 2002. 2) D died on July 29, 2012, and the Defendant solely inherited D’s property.
B. On April 22, 2009, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 140,000,000 to D on April 22, 2009. (2) D wired the total amount of KRW 140,000,000 to D on April 22, 2009, and KRW 140,000,000 to a gold farming and fishing cooperative corporation on April 22, 2009.
3) On April 24, 2009, a gold farming fish cooperative corporation remitted KRW 135,00,000 to the Plaintiff. (c) On May 26, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000 to D on May 26, 2010. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000 to D on the grounds that there was no dispute. (iv) 【No ground for recognition”, Gap’s evidence 1 through 3 (including serial number, Eul’s evidence 1, 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent D totaled KRW 150,00,000 ( KRW 140,000,000 remitted on April 22, 2009) to D without setting the maturity and interest rate of KRW 10,00,000 remitted on May 26, 2010.
D) Since D only 135,00,000 won (135,000,000 won, which was remitted to the Plaintiff on April 24, 2009 by a gold farming farming cooperative foundation) has died after it repaid only to the Plaintiff, it claims payment of the remainder of KRW 15,00,000 (150,000,000 - 135,000,000) and damages for delay therefor to the Defendant, who is a sole heir of D.
B. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 150,000,000 to D is as seen earlier.
However, there is no evidence to support the witness E’s testimony in light of the following circumstances: ① there is no evidence other than financial transaction details; ② the Plaintiff demanded payment of KRW 150,00,000 on the basis of only the financial transaction details remitted to D without reflecting the original financial transaction amount of KRW 135,00,000, which was returned from the corporation of gold Farming Cooperative; ③ there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff demanded the return of KRW 15,000,000 from the date of filing the instant lawsuit; and C actually operated the Plaintiff as one company.