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 November 12, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared a certificate of loan between C and the representative director of C (hereinafter “C”) stating that C will borrow KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff at the maturity of March 30, 2008 and 3% per interest month (hereinafter “the instant certificate of loan”). Thereafter, the Plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 300 million from November 12, 2007 to the bank account in the name of the Defendant.
B. The plaintiff was between C and January 23, 2008.
As to KRW 300 million remitted under the name of the defendant as stated in paragraph (1), the plaintiff prepared an agreement with the purport that the above KRW 300 million will be lent to C on December 31, 2008 and interest KRW 10 million monthly (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The defendant signed and sealed the instant agreement as a joint and several surety under the agreement, and the notary public was certified as a deed signed by a private person by law firm No. 161 on the same day as to the instant agreement as a joint and several surety.
C. On February 19, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 200 million in addition to KRW 300 million under the instant agreement to a bank account in the name of the Defendant.
(A) The Plaintiff’s transfer to a bank account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”) is KRW 300 million in total and KRW 500 million in the instant agreement (hereinafter “instant loan”).
Since June 2008, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on April 6, 2010 with the suspicion that the Defendant acquired 500 million won of the instant loan to the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office.
(hereinafter referred to as “relevant accusation case”) and the Plaintiff collected goods from C’s commodity storage and appropriated them in lieu of the repayment of KRW 100 million out of the loans of this case.
E. Article 545(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is deemed insufficient to cover the expenses for the bankruptcy proceedings with the bankruptcy estate upon a bankruptcy discontinuation ruling rendered by the Seoul Central District Court 2015Hadan379 on July 31, 2017.