beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.07.11 2017나67837

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On February 24, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant, and on May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the said loan by May 23, 2016.

However, inasmuch as the Defendant did not fully repay the loan, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 20 million and the delay damages therefor.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that there was no agreement for lending with the Plaintiff.

The Defendant received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, which was not the Plaintiff’s husband, borrowed from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) that was the representative director of the Plaintiff’s husband.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff remitted 20 million won to the defendant on February 24, 2016 is recognized.

However, the burden of proving that the above money was leased to the defendant is still available to the claimant, and even if all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the first instance court and in this court are collected, it is insufficient to recognize that the loan agreement has been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant as asserted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, which is acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the following circumstances: (a) although the plaintiff asserted that he lent a certain amount of money which is KRW 20 million to the defendant, the plaintiff does not clearly state the existence of a specific period of payment or an interest agreement; and (b) the plaintiff and the defendant did not submit any loan certificate, etc. corresponding thereto; (c) there was no direct communication between the plaintiff and his husband; (c) rather, the defendant is between the plaintiff's husband and his representative director; and (d) concluding a contract with C on business rights and stock acquisition that was the representative director.