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 23, 2007, the Plaintiff offered the building, etc. owned by the Plaintiff as security and borrowed KRW 160 million from the Defendant.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
Of the loan of this case KRW 160 million, KRW 30 million was deposited in the name of the Plaintiff, and KRW 10,065,753 was used for the purpose of repayment for the Plaintiff’s existing loan, and KRW 2,700,000 was used for the purpose of repayment for the Plaintiff’s existing loan, and KRW 192,60,00 was used as a security appraisal cost as a fire, and KRW 100,00 was deposited into the passbook in the name of B, and KRW 15,074,744 was used for repayment for the existing loan of KRW 2.
C. The Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant KRW 92 million on July 10, 2008, and KRW 68 million on September 5, 2008, and repaid the instant loan in full. D.
The Plaintiff filed a complaint against C and D, who had the Plaintiff’s passbook and seal from the Plaintiff at the time of the Defendant’s employee C and the Plaintiff’s loan, that “C and D conspired with the Plaintiff to forge and use the Plaintiff’s name, thereby withdrawing the Plaintiff’s money KRW 145 million.” However, C and D were subject to a disposition by the Prosecutor’s Office around March 16, 201.
E. The Plaintiff was indicted for committing a false criminal act as stated below, and was convicted on May 25, 2012 at the appellate court [Cheongju District Court 201No154, 1278 (combined)]. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, but the appeal was dismissed on May 16, 2014, and the said conviction became final and conclusive.
Around November 25, 2010, the Plaintiff submitted a false complaint to the effect that “Around November 23, 2007, the Plaintiff conspired with the Defendant’s employees C and D, who were the Plaintiff’s patriotic persons, to withdraw KRW 145 million from the Plaintiff’s passbook at will.”
However, the plaintiff filed a complaint on the ground that D did not pay D money even though D consented to the withdrawal of the above money and lent D money.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is C and D.