beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the main claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) on February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to the Defendant at the interest rate of KRW 1.5% per month and on February 18, 2014. If the borrower is D even if he/she is D, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for the obligation arising from the main operation as a member.
(2) The Defendant’s wife D, while operating the Defendant’s main points, has traded as a member of the Plaintiff’s fraternity for several years, and the above KRW 30 million is not only the Plaintiff’s payment of the time limit, but also the loan amount.
B. According to the reasoning of the judgment A1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s financial account on February 22, 2013.
However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff can be considered as a whole in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, and even if the evidence presented by the Plaintiff is a loan, it is insufficient to recognize that the borrower is a defendant who is not D.
① From around 2006 to the end of 2012, D entered into a accounts in the name of D or Defendant with respect to the Plaintiff’s operations, and during that process, the Plaintiff and D used financial accounts in the name of D, Defendant, and F with respect to D’s transactions.
D due to disputes between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff regarding the calculation of the accounts of the accounts, the Plaintiff discontinued the payment of the accounts from the end of December 2012, and demanded the return of the accounts already paid. At that time, the said amount was remitted.
② Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff received a loan deposit from the Defendant’s wife D and transferred it to the Defendant’s account as her husband, and the Plaintiff received a direct loan deposit from the Defendant.
There is no proof that the borrower has verified the intent of borrowing.
③ When conducting monetary transactions, the Plaintiff shall pay a large number of loans from D or other persons.