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. On August 1, 2018, C, the Defendant’s spouse, agreed to receive KRW 7.5 million monthly salary without bonuses from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) operated by the Plaintiff as the representative director, and was employed as a director of the management department.
B. From August 1, 2018, C received benefits and expenses from D to C’s bank account while working at D’s Kuwait site.
C. The Plaintiff wired KRW 15.1 million to the Defendant’s new bank and the Korea CTR bank account on December 15, 2018, KRW 5.5 million on December 26, 2018, KRW 500,000 on December 26, 2018, and KRW 10 million on January 10, 2019.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 30,100,000 to the Defendant from December 15, 2018 to January 10, 2019, with the necessary funds, such as sales contracts through C, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 30,100,01 and the damages for delay.
B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff wired the Defendant’s deposit account of KRW 15.1 million on December 15, 2018, KRW 5.5 million on December 26, 2018, KRW 30.1 million on December 26, 2018, KRW 10.1 million on January 10, 2019, and KRW 30.1 million on January 10, 2019, and KRW 30.1 million on the Defendant’s spouse, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the Defendant’s benefits and expenses to C’s personal account. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the Defendant’s above KRW 30.1 million on the part of the Defendant (a person who requested the Plaintiff to lend money by himself). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to enter into a loan contract for consumption with respect to any outstanding money, and there is no reason to deem otherwise.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.