beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was demanded to deposit USD 180,000 ( approximately KRW 180,000,000) with a security deposit in order to extend the contract period for six months from a Chinese company, which is the major business partner of the Defendant, and requested the Plaintiff to lend money.
The plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 90 million to the defendant, part of the amount requested by the defendant, and the same month.
8. 24. Pursuant to the above arrangement, a loan was made by setting the amount of KRW 90 million as six months due and payable.
The Defendant paid the loan amounting to KRW 10 million on June 28, 2016 and KRW 10 million on October 27 of the same year, respectively, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 70 million.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the remainder of the loans to the plaintiff KRW 70 million and damages for delay.
2. The entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) are insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 90 million to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged by the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 through 9 (including virtual numbers), i.e., (i) that the plaintiff paid KRW 90 million to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "C") practically operated by the defendant or the defendant as an internal director, but was returned KRW 20 million to the plaintiff or the defendant. However, there is no evidence to prove that the loan certificate was made in relation to the above money, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement on the due date or interest, and (ii) C delivers "E" imported from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the plaintiff's director") to the plaintiff's company from June 2014 to June 2015. After the plaintiff's father returned to the internal director of the plaintiff company, the transaction between the plaintiff company and C was suspended, and (iii) between the plaintiff and the defendant, the period for which the plaintiff could not be supplied to the plaintiff's company.