beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement for consumption (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 36 million from the Defendant on the same day as of December 14, 2017, with the maturity of payment specified by the Defendant on the same day.
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff borrowed and received KRW 36 million from the defendant and prepared and executed the notarial deed of this case. Since the plaintiff did not receive the above KRW 36 million from the defendant, there is no debt on the notarial deed of this case against the defendant.
B. From January 2012 to October 2016, the Defendant loaned money to the Plaintiff in close amount to KRW 60 million through passbook transfer, CD transfer, remittance without passbook transfer, cash delivery, etc. In addition, the Defendant made a notarial deed in this case within the meaning of entering into an opening agreement by settling accounts for all the claim and obligations during the period.
3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the entire purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap 2 and Eul 1, i.e., the defendant, from January 27, 2012 to September 13, 2016, transferred KRW 47,989,600 to the plaintiff through his bank account, his/her father, his/her wife, from September 27, 2012 to September 13, 2016, and ② according to the Plaintiff’s bank account details, the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 57,496,00 to C’s bank account from March 27, 2013 to November 25, 2013 is confirmed. However, in light of the period or amount of remittance, the fact that the plaintiff remitted the entire amount borrowed from the defendant is merely a mere amount of KRW 47,989,600,00.
If it is deemed otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not reflect the above excess amount to the Defendant, without paying the above 57,496,000 won to the Defendant, that it is difficult to view that there was any additional payment even after the said loan was fully repaid.