2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Since the above KRW 19,860,000, which the Plaintiff delivered to the Defendant, was invested in the said business when the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to operate the business of mobile phone sales and repair stores, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the above amount is a loan has no merit.

Judgment

Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties exchange money, while the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receiving money is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it is a loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In light of the fact that the Defendant denies the lending of the Plaintiff’s assertion of lending, the burden of proving that there was an agreement on lending exists is against the Plaintiff.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) each, the fact that the plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 19,660,000 to the account of the defendant or a third party designated by the defendant as shown in the attached Table from September 28, 2016 to November 9 of the same year is recognized (other than this, the plaintiff asserts that he remitted a total of KRW 200,000 to the defendant with the transportation cost of cell phone sales display on October 27, 2016, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone alone lent the above KRW 19,60,00 to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 10 and 11, are the Plaintiff.