beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that a KRW 50 million was remitted from the account in the name of the Plaintiff to the account in the name of the Defendant on June 15, 2016 is no dispute between the parties.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to lend necessary capital when establishing a corporation, and lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant on June 15, 2016. 2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million deposited by the passbook in the Defendant’s name as the Defendant’s claimant to the Defendant’s husband C and the Plaintiff as investment money pursuant to the investment agreement between the Defendant’s husband C and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “non-party company”).
B. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the judgment exchange money, the plaintiff asserts the cause of receiving money as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it is a loan
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). The provision on the evidence No. 6, which appears to conform with the Plaintiff’s assertion, is difficult to believe that it is in conflict with the provision on the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion.
In addition, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 4 through 16 and the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows: ① the appointment of the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the meeting of the promoters of the non-party company held on June 15, 2016 as internal directors; ② the Plaintiff was appointed and reported as an investigation reporter under Article 298 of the Commercial Act; ② the Plaintiff was in charge of conducting the business affairs of the non-party company; ③ the Plaintiff was using the corporate card; ④ the Plaintiff was not paid to the non-party company; ④ the Plaintiff did not receive any benefit from the non-party company; ⑤ there was no written investment agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; and ④ the Plaintiff did not appear to have agreed on the maturity or interest while paying the instant money.