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 July 28, 201, the Plaintiff transferred a loan of KRW 100 million (hereinafter “instant KRW 100 million”) to the Defendant’s deposit account at the Defendant’s request.
Meanwhile, the Defendant transferred the loans worth KRW 100 million on July 28, 2011, KRW 100 million on August 3, 2011, KRW 110 million on a total of KRW 110 million to the deposit account of C.
C withdrawn and used KRW 200,000,000,000 which was transferred as above.
B. The Plaintiff received KRW 10 million from the Defendant on September 9, 201, KRW 16,000,000 on October 16, 2012, KRW 800,000 on January 14, 2013, KRW 800,000 on February 1, 2013, KRW 500,00 on July 5, 201, and KRW 26,60,000 on the instant amount as repayment.
C. After that, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant on September 10, 2013, and was paid KRW 10 million on September 30, 2013, and loaned KRW 10 million on October 1, 2013, and was paid KRW 8 million on October 4, 2013 and KRW 2 million on October 10, 2013. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 10 million on October 10, 2013 and was paid KRW 5 million on September 22, 2014.
【Reason A-9 Evidence Nos. 1-9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the argument is that the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 68,330,000,000,000 for total loans to the Defendant on the premise that the borrower is the Defendant (i.e., KRW 30,000,000,000) (i.e., KRW 16,660,000,000,000 KRW 8,000,000,000 KRW 15,000,000) other than the amount already paid (i.e., KRW 26,660,000, KRW 15,000) and damages for delay.
As to this, the defendant asserts that the KRW 100 million in this case was borrowed by C, not the defendant.
B. 1) In order for the borrower to be the Defendant, the borrower of KRW 100 million to be the Defendant, there must be a mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the fact that the borrower is the Defendant. Accordingly, each entry of KRW 11, KRW 17-1, KRW 17-5, and KRW 20, corresponding thereto is merely a repeated statement of the Plaintiff himself or his spouse, or his previous damage, and it is difficult to believe that it is merely a repeated statement of the Plaintiff. 2)