beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim 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 asserted that he was aware of the Defendant and D with the introduction of the first policeman C on April 2007.
After purchasing the Fable block sale right to the Plaintiff in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the Defendant proposed to newly construct and sell commercial buildings of the 12th floor above the third floor above the ground surface on that ground. First of all, the Defendant proposed to provide KRW 200 million including the principal and KRW 300,000,000,000 including the principal, and KRW 10,000,000,000 after the four months from the date of loan.
Accordingly, on April 24, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 200 million to the account of the new sound company designated by the Defendant and lent it to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 200 million and the damages for delay.
B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 200 million to the account of new sound corporation on April 24, 2007 is recognized.
However, the defendant does not have any relation with himself and the new sound company, and the defendant did not request the plaintiff to lend money to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not have any way to the plaintiff at the time of lending the money. Thus, the plaintiff's statement of No. 200 million won transferred to the account of the new sound company on April 24, 2007 to the defendant, and the statement of No. 2 (C fact confirmation) and the witness's testimony are hard to believe in light of the following circumstances that are acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 of No. 2, and the statement of No. 3 alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it differently.
1) Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant on April 24, 2007, which was first known to the Defendant on Apr. 24, 2007, even though he had first known the Defendant as a policeman at early April 2007 through C, and further, the Plaintiff was not a company operated by the Defendant, but a new flag sound company (which is not a company operated by the Defendant).