beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. (1) The Plaintiff lent KRW 46,000,000 to the Defendant on February 27, 2008 (the Plaintiff’s claim for loan No. 1) (2) thereafter, the Plaintiff lent KRW 46,00,000 to the Defendant by May 15, 2008 (the claim for loan No. 2 of this case)
B. The Defendant demanded that the rent of KRW 52,534,00 in arrears, which is due to the settlement with the per share sheet in custody, be paid in substitute and the Plaintiff paid in substitute for the rent of KRW 52,534,000 on December 30, 2008.
2. Determination
A. (1) The fact that the Defendant borrowed KRW 12 million from the Plaintiff as to the loan claim for the loan claim for the instant loan No. 1 does not conflict between the parties.
However, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant paid 12 million won to the plaintiff in the name of wife C on July 21, 2008 and repaid the above loan. Thus, it is difficult to accept the plaintiff's claim for the first loan of this case.
Although the Plaintiff asserted that the said money paid by the Defendant was for repayment of other loans, it is difficult to accept the said assertion as there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s additional loan.
(2) In light of the following circumstances, although evidence as shown in the above argument as to the loan claim No. 2 of this case is indicated in the evidence No. 3 of this case and No. 12 of this case, in light of the evidence No. 2 of this case and the evidence No. 5 of this case’s evidence No. 2 of this case’s evidence No. 2 of this case’s evidence No. 5 of this case’s assertion, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion by itself, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
① There is no objective financial data that the Plaintiff lent KRW 46 million to the Plaintiff, and there is no interest agreement. ② The Defendant asserts that, as the Plaintiff was deemed to have suffered losses from the Plaintiff’s shares recommended by the Defendant, the Plaintiff forced the Plaintiff to compensate for the said shares, and the Plaintiff actually prepared and executed the above loan certificate.