beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant on February 19, 2014, 28, and March 4, 2014, respectively. The Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 50 million on March 5, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 50 million on the loan and delayed payment, and even if the Defendant did not borrow the above money, the money was deposited into the account under the Defendant’s name. Since the money was used as the business fund under the Defendant’s name, the Plaintiff was liable for joint and several liability or joint and several liability for the said borrowed money.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that it is not the defendant but C to borrow or receive money from the plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff transferred 100 million won to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant to the new bank account on February 19, 2014; and the same month on March 4, 2014; and the fact that the Defendant transferred 100 million won to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the representative director from March 5, 2014 to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff on March 5, 2014, may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account each entry in the evidence No. 1, 3, and 4 (including the serial number).
In full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Eul, not the defendant, on the ground of non-payment of the above loan, and during the investigation, the plaintiff lent the above loan to Eul, made a statement that the plaintiff received KRW 100 million from Eul, and the plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to Eul, and ② the plaintiff operated the corporation Eul, which remitted KRW 100 million to the plaintiff's account in the name of the plaintiff, and ③ the plaintiff did not receive a loan certificate from the defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the loan lender alleged by the plaintiff is not the defendant, but C, and the plaintiff transferred the loan to Eul to the defendant's account.