beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers).
The defendant is a registered titleholder of C (hereinafter referred to as the "instant company") who runs the business of manufacturing semiconductor equipment, etc.
B. On March 20, 2017, D, the Plaintiff’s spouse, remitted each of the KRW 60 million to the IBK Bank account under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant account”); and KRW 20 million on March 21, 2017, respectively; and the Plaintiff wired KRW 20 million to the said account on March 21, 2017.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the representative of the instant enterprise by introducing E around March 2017, the Plaintiff directly lent the instant loan by designating KRW 100 million as “interest KRW 1.1 million per month, and due date on December 31, 2017,” to the Defendant, who is the representative of the instant enterprise, for the purpose of purchasing machinery, etc.
The sole fact that there was a remittance in the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, etc. cannot be readily concluded that there was a unity between the account owner and the party’s nominal owner with respect to a loan for consumption. The burden of proof as to the existence of such a concurrence is the Plaintiff who claimed the loan.
However, in full view of the aforementioned facts, quoted evidence, witness F, witness G testimony, and witness E’s testimony, the actual operator of the instant business is F, and the Defendant is merely the lender of the business registration name. The instant account in the name of the Defendant for which KRW 100 million was remitted is merely an account used by F in the course of operating the instant business, and the said KRW 100 million was used as a machine purchase price, and the said interest was also paid by F. The fact that F was also paid by F. Each entry in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 (including the paper number), and some testimonys E are alone.