beta
Text
1. As to the claim amounting to KRW 40,000,000 among the plaintiff's claim of this case, the change is made in exchange at the trial.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. On November 28, 201 and November 29, 2011, the primary claim amounting to KRW 40 million issued by the Defendant was to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not pay the above amount to the Defendant for the aforementioned KRW 40 million on the ground that it did not run a business by entering into a commercial and transport contract with the Plaintiff. It is urgently necessary to pay funds, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million on November 28, 201, and KRW 40 million on November 29, 201, and KRW 20 million on November 29, 2011. However, the Defendant was not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above amount to the Defendant for the aforementioned KRW 40 million on the ground that it did not run a business well, and the Defendant was not obligated to pay the loans to the Plaintiff, and even if it was delivered to the Defendant, the Defendant did not receive the above KRW 40 million on the loan to the Plaintiff for the purpose of the Defendant’s investment (hereinafter the above KRW 40 million).
B. On December 19, 201 and December 29, 2011, the Plaintiff leased KRW 20 million to the Defendant (i.e., KRW 10 million on December 19, 201, and ② KRW 10,000 on December 29, 2011, and (ii) KRW 10,000 on December 29, 201, the Defendant ought to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 20,000,000 on the loan and delay damages.
2. Determination
A. Determination on the claim for refund of KRW 40 million delivered on November 28, 2011 and November 29, 2011 1) The fact that the Plaintiff delivered KRW 20 million to the Defendant on November 28, 2011, and KRW 20 million on November 29, 201, and KRW 20 million on November 29, 201 does not conflict between the parties. The Plaintiff asserted that the above KRW 40 million was lent to the Defendant at the trial. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the above KRW 40 million was lent to the Defendant, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the purport of the entire pleadings set forth in subparagraphs 1, 3, 7, 14, and 15 (including each type of evidence, evidence, evidence, and evidence Nos. 1-2, 2-1, 2-2, and 1-1, respectively.