beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around June 2010, the Plaintiff became aware of E through C and D, and around July 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) requested consultation on legal issues related to G located in Busan S (hereinafter “G”) located in F of his/her own ideology-gu; and (b) visited C and D, along with C and D.
B. Since then, E started compulsory execution against G due to its failure to repay its loans to financial institutions on September 29, 2010, and awarded a successful bid of KRW 8.45 billion to Korea SPS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea SP”) at the auction procedure on September 29, 2010, E decided to purchase G from 8.5 billion won under the name of Korea HP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) that it actually operated, while lending KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff, etc. as the down payment.
C. On October 1, 2010, the Plaintiff solicited the Defendant, who is a branch of the Plaintiff, to lend money to E by informing the Defendant of the foregoing fact and the state of property possession of E, and the Defendant lent KRW 150 million to E via the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, prepared a notarial deed stating that the Defendant would make a lump sum payment of KRW 200 million to the Defendant by December 31, 2010 (No. 737, 2010, No. 1 of the No. 1 of the No. 1 of the No. 1 of the No. 2010 Act, a notary public, a notary public, who is a law firm light and the obligor, will make a notarial deed (hereinafter “No. 1 of this case”).
After that time, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to lend additional money as E requires further payment, and the Defendant, via the Plaintiff, lent KRW 160 million to E under the same name on October 15, 2010, and the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant, prepared a notarial deed stating that the Defendant would make a lump sum payment of KRW 240 million to the Defendant by November 14, 2010 (No. 200 million by a notary public who is a law firm light light, No. 790, 2010, and No. 2 of this case).
E. However, this is the case.