대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The party's assertion that the plaintiff concluded a litigation delegation contract with the law firm C, and that the defendant lent a total of KRW 1.3 million to the defendant around December 13, 2013, while giving specific counseling on the case requested with the defendant who worked as the secretary general in the law firm, the defendant asserts that the defendant was paid KRW 1.3 million from the plaintiff in the course of handling the plaintiff's delegated case.
2. Determination
A. Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the amount is received, if one of the parties claims that it is a loan for consumption and the other party claims that it is the cause of the loan for consumption, the claimant has the burden of proving that it was received as the cause of the loan for consumption.
B. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 1 million to the Defendant around December 13, 2013 and KRW 1.3 million around March 1, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant money”). Furthermore, there is no dispute between the parties concerned as to whether the instant money is a loan. Furthermore, the following facts or circumstances, namely, the Plaintiff’s act of embezzlement of the Plaintiff’s deposit at a law firm C and a national bank branch around July 8, 2013, concluded a delegation agreement on the instant case, and thereafter, it appears that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to proceed the instant case on several occasions during the process of handling the instant case on holidays and nights, and requested the Defendant to file a criminal complaint on several occasions other than the instant money, and the Plaintiff’s act of embezzlement against the Defendant on the premise that the Seoul High-class District Prosecutors’ Office (Seoul High-Class 4, 2015, 2015, 2015, 2015, 305, etc.).