Loan Repayment Lawsuit | Plaintiff's Claim for a 100 Million Won Loan Dismissed

The client was the representative of Company A, and the plaintiff is a person serving as an internal director of Company A.

A notable point was that the plaintiff was the client's older brother.

In order to concentrate on research, development, and sales, the client asked her older brother to handle the company's finances.

However, the plaintiff began to act as though he were the company's representative, excluding the client from the company's operations and making it impossible to know how the company was actually being run.

As the plaintiff's tyranny worsened, the client asked him to leave the company and carefully reviewed the record of fund expenditures during that period.

Through this, the client learned that the plaintiff had committed embezzlement and breach of trust by forging various company documents.

The client reported the plaintiff's criminal conduct, and it is currently under investigation.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff instead claimed that he had paid the client 100 million won in loaned money and filed a lawsuit demanding its return.

🔗A claim for return of a loan is a lawsuit in which a creditor recovers loaned money through a civil action when the creditor cannot collect money lent to a debtor.

To proceed with a claim for return of a loan, the creditor must prove that there was a monetary transaction between the creditor and the debtor.

If, like the client in the case above, a person is served with an unjust loan repayment lawsuit, a strategy must be established to have the loan lawsuit dismissed.

The loan attorney argued that the plaintiff had managed the client's personal finances.

Although the plaintiff did consult to some extent regarding matters such as the record of fund expenditures, there was no fact that a loan agreement or a monetary loan for consumption had been concluded with the plaintiff.

On the contrary, it was confirmed that the plaintiff had already borrowed nearly 300 million won of the client's company funds without going through any internal approval procedure.

The loan attorney submitted the customer ledger of the above loan records as evidence and argued that even if the client had borrowed the money at issue from the plaintiff, the amount the plaintiff owed the client was far greater.

It is confirmed that the plaintiff not only embezzled and committed breach of trust with the client's company funds, but also transferred far more money than the amount the plaintiff claims.

Accordingly, the loan attorney argued that a counterclaim would be filed, emphasizing that the plaintiff's claim was without merit.