대여금
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant had a relationship of interest from around 2011 to around 2015.
B. The Plaintiff’s KRW 7 million on March 8, 2013, and the same year
7. December 12, 190 won was transferred to the defendant's account.
[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 that “The Defendant is entitled to pay the money if he/she sells the land in Gyeongnam-gu, so that he/she would pay the money after three months if he/she lends the money necessary for the payment of living expenses and insurance premiums.” The Plaintiff’s assertion that “the Defendant would pay the money after three months if he/she lends the money necessary for the payment of living expenses and insurance premiums.” The Plaintiff’s claim
7. 12.12.1 million won was loaned to 8 million won in total.
2) In addition, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 2 million to the Defendant on November 4, 2013. Unlike a promise, the Defendant, unlike the promise, only paid KRW 2 million on November 4, 2013, and did not repay the remainder of the loan. (iii) Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of the loan (= KRW 7 million) and the delay damages.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant, who had a relationship with the Plaintiff, was on the ground that the Defendant was on the part of a real estate and was on the part of a real estate, only donated the Defendant a total of eight million won for the retirement of real estate, and there was no fact that the Defendant borrowed the said money from the Plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments set forth in subparagraphs A and 2 through 4, are as follows: < Amended by Act No. 11635, Mar. 8,
7. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s total sum of eight million won that the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant’s account is leased to the Defendant.
① The Plaintiff transferred KRW 1.8 million to the Defendant’s account on November 4, 2013 in the same manner as the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 8 million to the Defendant, and paid the remainder KRW 200,000 in cash. The Defendant recognized the fact of borrowing the sum of KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff.