beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant on January 2016; and (b) on January 4, 2016, and on March 1, 2016, lent money to the Defendant by means of paying KRW 55,00,000 in total to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).
The defendant paid 4,00,000 won out of the above loans on March 24, 2016 through the non-party company, but did not pay the remaining 51,00,000 won up until now. Thus, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for a loan of 51,00,000 won and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including a serial number) added to the whole purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff seems to have invested or lent KRW 5,00,000 to the non-party company that runs the real estate development business, etc.
① The money transferred by the Plaintiff to Nonparty Company was used as a company’s operating fund, such as employee benefits, food supply, and purchase of fixtures.
② On March 21, 2016, the time when the Plaintiff remitted the said money, the Plaintiff was registered as an internal director in the corporate register of the non-party company.
③ The Plaintiff appears to have been in charge of bond education, real estate color, etc. while working in the non-party company at the time of remitting the above money.
B. However, with regard to the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan contract, as alleged in its assertion, with the Defendant, or that the Defendant agreed to return the above amount of KRW 5,00,000,000, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Nonparty Company, it is difficult to believe that the statement of KRW 55,000,000, which appears consistent with this, is the fact that the Defendant was the actual operator of the Nonparty Company, and the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to participate in the business operated by the Nonparty Company. However, such circumstances alone are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion.