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 the Plaintiff transferred KRW 100,00,000,000 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant (E; hereinafter “instant issues”) from the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant on July 14, 2016, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant (E) is not a dispute between the parties.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion 1) The Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on September 14, 2016 and agreed to lend the due date to the Defendant as of September 14, 2016. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 with the return of the loan and the delay damages therefor. (2) If the primary assertion is not the loan but the amount of KRW 100,000,000 remitted to the instant key account, the Defendant made unjust enrichment, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 with the return of unjust enrichment and the delay damages therefrom.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant key account was wholly managed by F from May 2016 to August 2016, and the Defendant did not enter into a loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, but did not make unjust enrichment of KRW 100,000.
3. Determination
A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s primary argument as to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) there is no document such as a loan certificate as to KRW 100,00,000 deposited in the instant issues account; (b) the F takes the position that it was not the Defendant’s borrowing of KRW 100,000 by itself; and (c) the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant and F by means of a loan as to KRW 100,000,000; (b) the Plaintiff appears to have been prosecuted only; and (c) the Defendant appears to have received a decision that there was no suspicion, based on the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the said KRW 100,000,000 was a money remitted under a loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.