beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as between November 27, 201 and February 6, 2012, the Plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 50 million and damages for delay.
In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant and the plaintiff were the defendant and the plaintiff at the time of the above loan alleged by the plaintiff, so the plaintiff did not lend the above money to the defendant, but should claim against the above company for the remittance amount to the deposit account in the name of C.
B. According to the overall purport of the statement and the argument of subparagraph 1-1 through 10 of the evidence No. 1-1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that (1) during the period from December 27, 2011 to February 6, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 23 million to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant, a total of KRW 27 million on six occasions, and the sum of KRW 27 million to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant, four times, respectively, and (2) the receipt prepared at the time of the remaining transfer except the remittance to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant as of February 6, 2012.
(1) However, inasmuch as C is the subject of separate rights and obligations from the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the remittance of money to a deposit account in the name of the Defendant is insufficient to recognize that it was lending the money to the Defendant, ② the fact that the remittance of money was immediately impossible to readily conclude that it was a lending of money under a lending agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, ③ the receipt prepared at the time of transfer stated “A lending” as the Plaintiff’s application for remittance, which is itself written by the Plaintiff, and there is no such statement in the remittance made on February 6, 2012 out of the remittance to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant, ④ the Plaintiff asserted as evidence for the fact that the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed on the Defendant’s real estate on January 12, 2012.