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. From March 17, 2009 to October 14, 2010, the Plaintiff deposited a total of KRW 93,550,000 into the Defendant’s account. The Defendant deposited a total of KRW 11,580,000 into the Plaintiff’s account during the above period. The details are as follows.
List of votes
B. Upon receipt of the money as stated in the “Plaintiff Defendant” column from the Plaintiff, the Defendant, as the bond company, has lent the money to another person in the name of the Defendant immediately or at least within several days, and the amount equivalent to the money remains unpaid.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant asked the plaintiff to lend money to a third party for the payment of interest on the condition that 30% interest was paid per annum. The plaintiff borrowed total of KRW 93,550,000 to the defendant as stated in the "Defendant of the plaintiff" column in the table of "A."
However, since the defendant did not pay the principal to the plaintiff with only 1,580,000 won as interest for the above loan, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 93,550,000 won and delay damages.
B. The defendant's assertion does not borrow the above KRW 93,550,000 from the plaintiff, but only received the payment as investment money.
In other words, the Plaintiff made an investment in money, and the Defendant shared the role of collecting and managing the money by lending the money to the obligor, but the Defendant made an oral agreement to distribute the profit to one-half each. The Defendant paid only the amount after deducting interest from the Plaintiff, and paid the Plaintiff the profit of KRW 11,580,000 as indicated in the “Defendant Plaintiff” column of the “Defendant Plaintiff” column of the slip, and fulfilled a considerable portion of the said investment agreement.
Therefore, this case is based on the premise that the plaintiff lent money to the defendant.