beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff leased KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s account on September 1, 2017. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant received the said KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, but claimed that it is not a loan, but an investment amount.
2. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) on September 1, 2017, the plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the defendant's Busan Bank account; and (b) C borrowed KRW 50 million from the plaintiff to use for the incorporation fund of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D") for the precious metal manufacturing business; and (c) on October 31, 2018, the plaintiff prepared and issued a confirmation of facts (hereinafter "certificate of facts in this case").
However, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 through 22, the above recognized facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant on September 1, 2017, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not provide a loan certificate for the above KRW 20 million and did not appear to have agreed on the maturity or interest. On the other hand, the Nonparty Company’s accounting staff prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a “investment statement” with the purport that the Plaintiff invested the total amount of KRW 58.11 million in the Nonparty Company by September 20, 2017, including the amount of KRW 20 million established by the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request. This point is due to a flexible circumstance supporting the Plaintiff’s investment rather than lending the said money to the Defendant.
In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that the said president had voluntarily prepared the investment statement by the Defendant, but the said president's investment statement is the Plaintiff.