beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased KRW 300 million to the Defendant on May 31, 2012, setting the due date for reimbursement of KRW 300 million, and C jointly and severally guaranteed this.
The Defendant completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 300 million of the maximum debt amount against the Defendant’s co-ownership 1/3 of the land Ansan-si D (hereinafter “instant land”) in order to secure the above loan debt.
(2) The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 300,000 to the Plaintiff the loan of KRW 300,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on the ground that the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage was cancelled, and the Plaintiff believed that the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring mortgage was cancelled, but the Defendant paid only KRW 250,750,617 out of KRW 30,000,000,000,000
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the borrowed money of KRW 49,249,383 (=300,000,000 - KRW 250,750,617) and damages for delay.
2. First of all, the evidence Nos. 2 through 4 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the authenticity of the evidence No. 1 (the certificate of tea). Thus, it cannot be used as evidence.
Meanwhile, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the entries in the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of this case out of the instant land on March 27, 2012, which the Plaintiff claimed as the date of loan, was completed, and cancelled on December 27, 2012, which was alleged as the date of loan, and the cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage is very unusual if the Plaintiff did not set up a collateral security or receive a full repayment of the loan amount with the same amount as the loan amount as the maximum debt amount, and ② the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid the above money to a third party, namely, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), rather than the Defendant, even if the Plaintiff alleged as having lent KRW 300 million to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not prove that the Defendant repaid KRW 250,750,617, which is part of the loan).