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 and the Defendant were year personnel at the time of June 8, 2015, and remitted eight million won to the Defendant’s account on June 8, 2015.
B. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the lease deposit of three million won, monthly rent of 1.5 million won, and the period of August 7, 2017, with respect to 101, the Dab3rd floor in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Dadong, Seoul, which is owned by C, and operated Kindo as a opening business around August 2017.
C. On October 2, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the same commercial building as the Plaintiff’s name.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 2, Gap evidence No. 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. On June 8, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 8 million to the Defendant, and on October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 3 million upon the transfer of the claim to return the commercial lease deposit.
The defendant asserts that since the defendant agreed to pay five million won around January 13, 2016, the defendant is obligated to pay five million won the principal remaining to the plaintiff.
B. The fact that the Defendant received eight million won from the Plaintiff on June 8, 2015 is as seen earlier.
However, the Plaintiff, after his retirement from August 2, 2016 to October 2, 2010, performed the work as above, and thereafter arranged the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and if the Plaintiff lent money to the Plaintiff and the Defendant received reimbursement of KRW 3 million on October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff did not undergo the above procedure even though it was required to prepare a loan certificate and other documents regarding the settlement of the remaining money at the time, and the Defendant and the Plaintiff did not pay the above debt to the Plaintiff. The content of the conversation between the Defendant and the Plaintiff, stating that the Defendant, who demanded the Plaintiff to pay the above amount of money to the Plaintiff, did not accurately state the amount that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, and that there was a difference between the Defendant and the Defendant.