대여금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is jointly and severally liable for the payment of KRW 183,00,00 to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff lent KRW 183,00,00 from July 26, 2006 to July 11, 2007, under the name of development costs for constructing a convalescent hospital for the aged to the Defendants, who are married couple, on the five parcels, including D and D, in the case of Pakistan.
B. Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the Plaintiff provided and received money between the parties, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the lending was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). Since the Defendants both deny the Plaintiff’s lending agreement, the burden of proving the lending agreement is asserted against the Plaintiff. 2) According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, according to the Plaintiff’s statement, the fact that the Plaintiff’s lending agreement was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant C account from July 26, 2006 to July 11, 2007 is recognized.
However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff asserted that he lent a certain amount of money to the Defendants, but failed to clearly state the existence of a specific maturity or an interest agreement and to submit a loan certificate corresponding thereto (the Plaintiff’s statement that he/she did not prepare a loan certificate), etc., it is difficult to conclude that the money transferred to Defendant C account is a loan, and no other evidence exists to support this.
Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 3, the following circumstances are recognized.
① Until the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 15, 2017, there is no assertion or evidence that the Plaintiff sought a loan from the Defendants for about 10 years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.
② The Defendants are arguing that the Plaintiff did not lend money to Defendant B, but rather “donation”.
③ The Plaintiff extended a loan to the Defendants, in addition to the amount of loan.