대여금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim and additional selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.
3...
1. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35,400,000 to an enterprise bank account (Account Number: H; hereinafter “instant account”) under the name of the Defendant on June 30, 2010 does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by the statement in Gap evidence 1.
2. Determination on loan claims
A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff loaned the above money to the defendant by remitting 35,400,000 won to the account of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 35,400,000 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.
B. Where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, simple delivery, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was the intent of the party to the loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made. The burden of proving that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption is the Plaintiff asserting that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption.
(2) On July 26, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant lent KRW 35,400,00 to the Defendant with the payment of the installments of the BMW vehicle operated by the Defendant, and that the Defendant lent KRW 35,40,000 to the Defendant. According to the results of the fact-finding on the Plaintiff’s Incheon Vehicle Registration Office of the first instance court, the Defendant’s fact-finding on April 14, 2010 from I (hereinafter “Non-MM2 Social Services Korea Co., Ltd.”) for the Social Services Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-M2”) (hereinafter “Non-M2”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s registration number changed to J), and the fact-finding vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) was transferred to the account in the name of the Defendant’s KRW 35,40,00 and KRW 3400,630, 200.
However, other.