beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 17,687,590 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from May 5, 2016 to March 21, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10 million with the Defendant’s Lice C’s account, and KRW 10 million with the Defendant’s account on March 31, 2016, respectively.
B. The Defendant received each of the above money and remitted it to D’s account on the day.
C. Under the pretext of interest on the above loan, the Plaintiff’s account was deposited from the Defendant or C’s account to the Plaintiff’s account on January 15, 2016, KRW 100,000,000 on February 22, 2016, KRW 80,000 on March 28, 2016, KRW 50,000 on April 8, 2016, KRW 220,000 on April 10, 2016, KRW 20,000 on April 20, 2016, KRW 3270,000 on April 8, 2017, and KRW 50,00 on April 11, 2017.
【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence 2-3; Eul evidence 1-5; Eul evidence 4; the purport of the whole pleadings】
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that he lent the above KRW 20 million to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that he borrowed the above money from the plaintiff D and the defendant merely acted as a broker for the plaintiff to lend the money to D.
B. The facts that each of the above money remitted by the Plaintiff do not conflict between the parties, and thus, whether the borrower was Defendant D or not is the key issue of the instant case.
In full view of the reasoning of the arguments in the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, and 5-2, the plaintiff did not have any relationship with the defendant and did not have any relationship with D at the time of the loan of this case, and there was no request to lend money from Eul. On the other hand, the defendant borrowed D money from September 2014 to April 2016 and received interest. The loan transaction of this case was made only through the account of the defendant or the defendant, even if D account was made, and the defendant prepared a notarial deed of loan for consumption of KRW 350,500,000 from D around October 2016, it can be acknowledged that the above amount was included in the loan of this case.
The above facts of recognition can be known.