beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant and B jointly operated E as the husband and wife, and the Plaintiff leased KRW 300 million to the Defendant and B with the business fund of the said company on September 11, 2007, but received reimbursement of KRW 220 million among them.
Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay to the plaintiff KRW 80 million and delay damages.
2. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the plaintiff transferred KRW 290 million to one bank account (Account Number D) in the defendant's name on September 11, 2007, and around 2007, the defendants were married, and the defendant was registered as the auditor of Eul Co., Ltd.
However, on the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 1, namely, ① all the money deposited by the plaintiff to the defendant's account was withdrawn and used in the name of Eul Co., Ltd.; the above company appears to have been operated at the time; ② the plaintiff was paid part of the loan by means of receiving money from the above company's employees or her mother F's account, and did not have received money from the defendant's name; ③ The plaintiff filed a complaint with the defendant in collusion with Eul to the effect that he received 290 million won from the plaintiff, but at the Sung-nam branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office, the defendant filed a complaint with the defendant on July 15, 2014, on the grounds that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant received money from the plaintiff in collusion with Eul, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff lent KRW 300 million to the defendant.
3. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is just.