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. The Plaintiff is the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (formerly: D Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “C”), regardless of whether before or after the change, and the Defendant served as the director of C’s affiliated research institute from July 1, 2010 to July 31, 2015.
B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1.5 million on February 14, 201 by withdrawing and delivering cashier’s checks or cash to the Defendant or remitting from the Plaintiff’s personal account to the Defendant’s account, ② KRW 50 million on February 29, 2012, ③ KRW 45 million on August 16, 2012, ④ KRW 5 million on March 11, 2013, ⑤ KRW 30 million on March 25, 2013, KRW 60 million on November 14, 2013, KRW 70 million on May 23, 2014, and KRW 40 million on December 4, 2014, respectively.
(1) Of them, (1) through (7) and (8) the sum of KRW 282,00,000,000,000,000,000 shall be referred to as “the instant payment”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, each flag of Gap’s 1 through 3 evidence (including all branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the payment of the instant case was made is the Plaintiff’s loan as the expenses for studying the Defendant’s children, and the Plaintiff notified the return of the instant loan for consumption with the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, and the due date has arrived. As such, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the payment of KRW 282,00,000 and the damages for delay.
B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the evidence alone presented by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize the payment of this case as a loan to the plaintiff against the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.
① The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare a loan certificate or other disposal document regarding the instant payment.
In addition, the plaintiff is about the agreed interest rate and repayment period with respect to the money of this case.