beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant on October 25, 201, and KRW 10,000,00 on March 31, 201. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff interest and delay damages on each of the above loans and each loan, respectively.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the entire pleadings, the Defendant, a credit service provider, from around September 2010 to lend money to the Plaintiff as security, etc. The Defendant prepared a receipt stating that he/she received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on October 25, 2010 and received the said money in the capacity of the Defendant’s agent C, and issued the receipt to the Plaintiff on March 31, 201, and the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10 million to the Defendant on March 31, 201.
However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of investment, etc. as Seoul Southern District Court 2013Da47556, and asserted that the amount of KRW 10 million transferred to the Defendant on March 31, 2010 was the repayment of the borrowed money as of October 25, 2010. The Plaintiff asserted against the Defendant that the Defendant was the repayment of the borrowed money as of March 25, 2015, KRW 38945 (main claim), and KRW 52729 (Counterclaim) and the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for the cancellation of the establishment registration and the return of the lent loan under the name of the Defendant as of October 25, 2010 and KRW 30 million on March 31, 2011. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant returned the money borrowed from the Defendant on March 25, 2016 to the Plaintiff on the ground that it received the money from the Defendant.
For the reason that ‘the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to recognize the lending fact, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan was dismissed.