beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The same year as the Plaintiff’s KRW 50,00,000 on January 31, 2018, using a bank account under the name of the Defendant, to the Defendant.
3. The fact that the Defendant paid KRW 50,000,000 each. The Defendant transferred the said money to the account in the name of C in order to send it to C operating real estate investment business on the date of receiving the said money from the Plaintiff. However, as the Plaintiff received only KRW 18,00,000 from C or the Defendant for a total of KRW 5 million and KRW 18,00,000,000 from C or the Defendant, the fact that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the said KRW 100,000,000,000, which was transferred by account transfer, is no dispute between the parties.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the above amount should be paid in full by the defendant because it is not the plaintiff's investment but the defendant's loan to the defendant for the defendant's insufficient investment money. The defendant asserted that the above amount should be paid in full, as the investment money to the non-party C itself, the defendant merely delivered it to the defendant.
Even if it is based on the entry of No. 3 or No. 3, No. 6, and No. 8, the Plaintiff had already been aware of the circumstances used for a business in which the said money was delivered to another real estate business entity through the Defendant to pay profits from the purchase of real estate by selling real estate.
In full view of the circumstances where both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are employees of the real estate brokerage office and have friendship, and in such cases, the Plaintiff lent money to the head of the office where the Plaintiff works, and the Defendant prepared a separate loan certificate, while the Defendant did not prepare a separate loan certificate, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s transfer money to the Defendant is not merely a loan to the Defendant, but an investment money transferred for the purpose of receiving profits through the Defendant.
The plaintiff's assertion is unclear, and it is a dual agreement that the plaintiff impliedly consented to the principal preservation proposal of the defendant.