1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a company with the purpose of housing construction business, housing sales agency business, and consulting business, and C is a person who served as a plaintiff's internal director or representative director from August 18, 2010 to November 22, 2016.

From May 26, 2011 to October 31, 2011, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 2.28 billion to the Defendant as shown in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 2 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 8, and the plaintiff asserted the purport of the entire pleadings as to the purport of the whole pleadings. The plaintiff extended a total of 2.28 billion won to the defendant over 16 times from May 26, 2011 to October 31, 2011 as shown in the attached Table. Since the defendant repaid only KRW 550 million among them, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 1.73 billion to the plaintiff and delay damages.

The Defendant lent the Plaintiff’s office deposit and operating funds to C, and accordingly, paid 20% of the Plaintiff’s revenue from the sales agency business. The Defendant’s money transferred from the Plaintiff is merely the same, and not the money borrowed from the Plaintiff.

Judgment

Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money has been received, if the defendant contests against the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the party bears the burden of proving that the lending was made.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, each of the entries in the evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 15 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and witness D’s testimony as to part of the money remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, it is recognized that a written disbursement decision was prepared under the pretext of a loan as to the part of the money remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, on the other hand, even though it is deemed that the written statement Nos. 1, 14, 6 through 8, and part of the testimony of testimony D was prepared.