2. Appeal;

Since only the plaintiff appealed against the lost part, the scope of this Court's trial is limited to the portion of the loan claim and to the portion of the claim for return of unjust enrichment added by this court as a preliminary claim.

The plaintiff asserts that the judgment party's primary claim (claim for Lease) is that the defendant lent the money needed for the mechanical facility business to the defendant on July 4, 2012, and the defendant lent 10,000,000 won to the defendant on July 4, 2012 without due date. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above loan and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the contract was concluded between the company operated by the plaintiff and the company for which the defendant worked as a director at the time, and that the plaintiff received the above KRW 10,000,000 as the rebates, or not received as the borrowed money.

Judgment

The burden of proof on the loan is the fact of the cause of claim in the loan claim lawsuit and the burden of proof on the loan is on the part of the assertion.

(B) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff was paid a rebates of KRW 10,000,000 is merely an indirect part of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s loan. However, the Defendant’s assertion of rebates cannot be deemed to have the burden of proof on the nature of the Plaintiff’s loan claim, on the ground that the Defendant asserted the said rebates, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000 to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the claim is without merit.

The plaintiff does not prove that the defendant received the above KRW 10,000,000 as the rebates.