beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Around August 11, 2009, the summary of the parties’ assertion: (a) the Defendant: (b) received a loan certificate from the Plaintiff stating that “C will receive money from C through a criminal charge; and (c) borrowed KRW 8,000,000 from the Plaintiff on March 29, 2005 (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”); and (d) did not return the loan claim against C until December 25, 2017 when the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff’s loan claim expires, thereby making it impossible to exercise the Plaintiff’s claim against C.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 41,796,821 (i.e., principal amounting to KRW 8,00,000,000).
The Defendant did not receive the loan certificate of this case by deceiving the Plaintiff as alleged by the Plaintiff. However, on October 25, 2007, the Defendant received the loan certificate of this case as collateral and only keeps the loan amounting to KRW 9,400,000 (= KRW 15,000,000 - KRW 2,000,000 - KRW 3,60,000 on April 15, 2008, and KRW 3,600,000 on April 15, 2008) from the Plaintiff.
Judgment
The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant was issued a loan certificate of this case by deceiving the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant committed tort against the plaintiff is without merit.
Furthermore, even if the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, deceiving the Plaintiff and did not return the loan certificate of this case, the Plaintiff cannot make a claim based on the claim stated in the loan certificate of this case against C, but can exercise the above claim by filing a lawsuit based on the claim stated in the loan certificate of this case. In such a case, there is room to suspend the extinctive prescription of the above claim, and even if the Plaintiff claimed against C based on the above claim, it was impossible to submit the loan certificate of this case as evidence.