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 was that the Defendant, known by C upon C’s introduction, was provided with the right to move in the D redevelopment area as collateral, and on January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 140 million to the Defendant with interest rate of KRW 20 million after the maturity of two months.
However, as the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff several times the above interest KRW 20 million and the principal KRW 40 million, the Defendant sought payment of the remainder principal KRW 100 million and damages for delay from January 13, 2012, which is the lending date.
2. Determination:
A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 140 million to the account (the E-Account Number) opened in the name of the defendant on January 13, 2012 is recognized.
B. 1) Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that money was received between the parties to a loan for consumption, if there is no dispute as to the cause of the receipt of money, the plaintiff's assertion that it was received due to the loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972) is the burden of proving that it was made through the loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Sept. 25, 2014).
The fact that the Defendant’s reply on September 25, 2014, which was presented on October 15, 2014 at the first day for pleading of this Court, opened on October 10, 2014, was presented to this court. However, the above reply only stated to the effect that “the Defendant recruited investors in G housing association projects on behalf of the F stock company, and provided the right to sell apartment houses as security by receiving investment of KRW 140 million from the Plaintiff,” and there was no provision to the effect that the Defendant was a person who entered into a loan contract for consumption with the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Defendant also asserted through each of the following preparatory documents.