beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff, on April 13, 2005, remitted KRW 170 million to the deposit account in the Defendant’s name on April 13, 2005, and lent KRW 170 million to the said party, as there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 170 million (hereinafter “instant loan”), barring any special circumstance.
B. Meanwhile, in addition to the instant loan, the Plaintiff asserts that he additionally lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant on October 19, 2005. Thus, according to the evidence No. 1-2 of this case, it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the deposit account in the Defendant’s name on October 19, 2005, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the above fact of recognition alone the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, the above KRW 30 million is regarded as the Plaintiff’s investment in the Plaintiff C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion 1) was delegated by C with the purchase of imported timber and customs clearance. The Defendant borrowed the instant loan from C due to lack of wood prices and customs clearance costs. Since then, the Plaintiff offset the Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 200 million between the Defendant and C, and the Plaintiff’s additional payment of KRW 170 million to the Defendant for the Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 170 million, and the Plaintiff’s additional payment of KRW 30 million to the Defendant. The Plaintiff agreed to invest the said KRW 200 million in C, and the written investment agreement thereon (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”).
As the Plaintiff’s instant claim was also drawn up, the Plaintiff’s claim for the loan was converted to the investment amount. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant investment agreement was made by the Defendant against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.