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 reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the plaintiff's addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the trial of the first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion ① The defendant, on his own account, entered the number of the national bank account in his name, and accordingly remitted KRW 50 million to the defendant's above account. The judgment of the court of first instance that the defendant merely lent the account to C without any further evidence is in violation of the rules of evidence.
② Although the court of first instance should adopt and examine C, D, E, and F as a witness, it is an incomplete hearing to make a decision without adopting it.
B. ① Determination as to the assertion 1) Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money was received, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, it is unclear whether the Plaintiff, who asserts the lending, bears the burden of proving that the lending was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015). 2) In addition, it is unclear whether the entry of the evidence No. 1, in itself, was liable for the Defendant jointly and severally liable for KRW 50 million (joint and several liability) or other corresponding legal liability.
In addition, even according to the confirmation document attached to the legal brief submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant is liable to pay the above KRW 50 million, separate from C.
Rather, according to the evidence No. 8, the appeal filed by the plaintiff against non-prosecution disposition (No. 2019 High Public Prosecutor's Office No. 288) can only be accepted as dismissed on March 21, 2019.
In addition, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff and the records of related criminal cases are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 50 million to the defendant.
Therefore, it is true.