beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s Seopo National Agricultural Cooperative account on March 8, 2011.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, who was known to ordinary people, was in need of money, lent 5 million won by the above method, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the borrower is D, since he only transferred the above money transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant's account to D upon D's request that C invested the funds together with the real estate business that C was conducted.
B. Determination is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the Plaintiff, which was recognized as comprehensively comprehensively considering the evidence employed earlier and the entire purport of each statement in Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (including paper numbers), transferred KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s account on March 8, 201; (b) 16:10,000 after two hours after the transfer of KRW 5 million to D’s account; (c) and (d) as part of the sales price for two households located in Eul’s apartment complex, at the Defendant’s recommendation, as part of the sales price for two households located in Eul-gu, 201.
6. up to 22.2 billion won deposited into the Defendant’s bank account. Afterwards with C, Defendant, etc., the Defendant, etc. agreed to lend the above KRW 245 million to the Defendant in the course of investing in the land located in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do ( Jeju District Court Decision 2014Da3470), and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of the above money (the above KRW 245 million included KRW 5 million after the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s bank account. If the borrower was the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, in light of the flow of the said money, the Defendant loaned KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff to D again, and the Defendant is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion.