beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s DDR account (Account Number E) transferred KRW 30 million to Defendant B’s account on December 23, 2013; ② deposited KRW 6 million in cash on May 17, 2014; ③ deposited KRW 10150,000 to Defendant B’s F’s account on October 31, 2014; and ④ deposited KRW 4 million in cash on November 10, 2014.
B. From the Plaintiff’s above D Association account to Defendant C’s account; ① KRW 50,500,000 for each of the 5050,000 won on May 29, 2016 and July 3, 2016; ② KRW 6 million on May 23, 2017, respectively.
C. Defendant C received a loan of KRW 30 million from G association on April 30, 2014. ① On November 11, 2015, Defendant C received KRW 14,129,355 from the Plaintiff’s above D association account to repay the principal and interest of loan, and KRW 6,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s work partner’s account to Defendant C’s G association account, and paid KRW 20,000,000 of the loan principal. ② On May 3, 2016, Defendant C transferred KRW 10,000 from other accounts of Defendant C to Defendant C’s G association account from May 4, 2016 to KRW 10,000 of the loan principal.
The Plaintiff holds a receipt of KRW 2,30,00,00,000,00,000,000, and KRW 71,990,000, property tax for year 2016, ③ January 1, 2014, the amount of electricity charges of February 2016, KRW 490,930, and KRW 490,930,00,000, which are imposed on Defendant C in relation to the factory located in Ulsan-gun District (hereinafter referred to as “principal factory”).
[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap No. 11112, Eul No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff to determine the claim against the defendant B, as to the above 1.A.
The claim that the remainder of KRW 50 million, excluding the interest paid, out of the total financial transactions of KRW 50,150,000 in this case, was leased as the purchase price of this case, and that the loan amount of KRW 50,000,000 and the delay damages were claimed.
In full view of the facts and absence of dispute over the above recognition, evidence No. 68, evidence No. 5, and the following circumstances according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff is the defendant.