beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. A summary of the assertion: The Defendant’s father’s father He (Death on June 9, 2016) and the Plaintiff was de facto marital relationship.
The Plaintiff lent to the Defendant KRW 1 million on July 6, 2012, KRW 22 million on August 3, 2012, KRW 500,000 on November 12, 2012, KRW 600,000 on November 15, 2012, KRW 300,000 on November 24, 2012, KRW 60,000 on December 7, 2012, KRW 300,000 on December 10, 2012, KRW 70,80,000 on December 5, 2013, and KRW 70,080 on February 8, 2013 to the Defendant’s account without a due date agreement.
The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the interest or delay damages after July 6, 2012, which is the loan amounting to KRW 70.8 million and the loan date.
Defendant : The net C only used the account in the name of the Defendant as a bad credit holder, and the Defendant did not borrow the money claimed by the Plaintiff.
2. According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s account is transferred from the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant’s name account on July 6, 2012; KRW 1.5 million on November 12, 2012; KRW 3 million on November 24, 2012; KRW 60 million on December 7, 2012; KRW 3 million on December 3, 2012; KRW 67.5 million on December 10, 2012; KRW 70.8 million on August 3, 2012; KRW 60,000 on August 6, 2012; KRW 60,000 on November 15, 2012; and KRW 500,000 on February 5, 2013 to the Plaintiff’s name, contrary to what is alleged by the Plaintiff.
The transferred facts are recognized.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, are: (a) there is no interest and maturity agreement, and no loan certificate, etc.; (b) the network C has used the account in the name of the defendant with bad credit standing; (c) the Plaintiff appears to have been aware of such circumstances; and (d) the Plaintiff initially asserted that the Plaintiff would have lent money to the Plaintiff for the purpose of purchasing cargo vehicles (D); and (c) the network C changed its assertion to the effect that the Plaintiff was deemed necessary to pay money for the said reason; and (d) the Defendant discovered the notice of public charges in the course of adjusting valuables, but it was not submitted as supporting the change of the preparatory brief as of December 20, 2016.