beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Temporary amount of 10 million won on January 29, 2004 10,000 won on February 13, 2004 20,000 won on March 4, 2004 30,000,000 won on March 13, 2004 4. 1,000,000 won on March 13, 2004 5. 3,000,000 won on March 31, 2004 60,000,000 won on April 12, 2004 114,00,000,000 won on April 29, 200, the Plaintiff received the total amount of KRW 104,00,000 from the Defendant’s Schedule as follows (hereinafter “Defendant’s 10,100,000 won”).
The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 100,000,000 on October 15, 2004, and KRW 50,000,000 on October 21, 2004 to the Defendant (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s remittance”).
The plaintiff around the end of 2005, around 30,000 won at par value C, which is the defendant's wife, prepared and sent to C a promissory note No. 892, 2005, which is a notary public. (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case").
C from the Seoul Central District Court (2006TTTT 14830) on October 17, 2006, upon receiving a seizure and collection order on the Plaintiff’s wage claims, etc. as executive title, the C collected KRW 11,256,230 in total from July 25, 2008 to June 6, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the plaintiff's allegations in the purport of the whole pleadings are loans of KRW 100,000,000 to the defendant by determining the repayment period after three months.
Meanwhile, the sum of the Defendant’s remittances KRW 30,00,000 (for example, Nos. 1 and 2 of the above table; hereinafter referred to as “nets”) was borrowed from the Defendant, and the sum of KRW 84,00,000 (Nos. 3 through 6 of the order) was received from the Defendant to deliver it to F upon request from the Defendant to F, “E” (hereinafter referred to as “E”).
The No. 30,000,000 won in total (No. 1,2) is prepared for the No. 30,000 won in this case.
The defendant is a company working in the plaintiff's workplace D's audit office, and the plaintiff is likely to suffer disadvantage from C.