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 there is no dispute between the parties to the basic facts, and according to the evidence No. 1 through 5 of the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of special vehicles, the manufacture and sale of special parts, etc., and the Defendant is a representative director of a stock company B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant operation company”) engaged in the collection of wastes, waste, lubric oil, etc., and the product brokerage business, etc., and the Plaintiff is deemed to have remitted KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant on November 13, 2013, and KRW 30,000,000 on July 10, 2014, and KRW 23,807,040 on February 13, 2015, and KRW 292,90,000 on February 32, 2016, 200,006,000 each remitted money.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that, in addition to the above KRW 93,600,000, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000 to the Defendant on June 25, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted as follows.
1) In the first place, the Defendant is obligated to repay the above loan to the Plaintiff, as the Defendant lent the sum of KRW 103,600,000 to the Defendant. 2) In the second place, if the Defendant did not borrow the above KRW 103,60,000, it is obligated to return the above amount to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
B. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2:
1) The Defendant requested the Plaintiff to manufacture special vehicles for the business of the Defendant’s operating company, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained the transactional relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant by manufacturing and installing a tank glass on the Defendant’s automobile and delivering it to the Defendant. 2) Upon requesting the Plaintiff to manufacture special-purpose vehicles, the Defendant received loans from the Defendant or the Defendant’s operating company for the purchase price of the vehicle and the cost of manufacturing the tank glass and paid at least 80% of the funds necessary for the production of the special-purpose vehicle in advance to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff traded by installing the special-purpose vehicle facilities after purchasing the vehicle in advance.
3. The plaintiff is the defendant on June 23, 2015.