beta
Text
1. The claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
Summary
A. On July 10, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 35,00,000,000 (=25,000,000 + 10,000,000 + 10,000,000 + 10,000,000; hereinafter “instant KRW 35,00,000”).
① The Plaintiff loaned the instant KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant by setting the interest rate of KRW 700,000 per month and the due date of payment on July 10, 2014, respectively.
② From relevant criminal cases to July 10, 2014, the Defendant agreed to reimburse the Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000 in the instant case.
③ On July 8, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the purchase of individual cargo vehicles (hereinafter “instant purchase contract”) with the Defendant, and paid KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant as the security deposit. Since the contract term of the instant purchase contract expires, the Defendant shall return the security deposit to the Plaintiff.
B. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000 and damages for delay.
Judgment
A. First, we examine the argument regarding loans.
In light of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that a loan of KRW 35,00,000 under a monetary loan agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was given, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.
B. Next, we examine the argument regarding the agreed amount.
The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that a separate agreement on the return of KRW 35,00,000 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded in the course of the investigation and trial of related criminal cases conducted by the Plaintiff following the Plaintiff’s accusation of the Defendant against the charge of fraud, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.
C. Next, we examine the argument regarding the instant purchase agreement.
According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8, and 11, the following circumstances are followed.