2...

A. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion made a loan by transferring KRW 40,000 to Defendant B’s account at the request of the Defendants, and decided to repay the said loan by July 30, 2017.

In addition, around December 10, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 7,200,000, a warehouse rental fee of 12 months (from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017) with the Defendants, plus KRW 600,00,000 per month. The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 2,380,000, and sales settlement amount of KRW 2,420,000 (=7,20,000 + KRW 2,380,000 + KRW 2,40,000) with the Defendants.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the above loans and the settlement agreement amount of KRW 42,420,000 (=the settlement agreement amount of KRW 40,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) According to the loan 40,000,000 won and the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff transferred 40,000,000 won to the defendant Eul's account on June 30, 2017 is recognized. However, in a case where the money is transferred to another person's account, etc., the remittance may be based on a variety of legal causes. Thus, the party who asserts that the remitted money is a loan under a monetary loan contract with the person who receives it has the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). It is insufficient to acknowledge that the above amount is a loan to the defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (such as tea evidence, etc.).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit. (2) The part concerning settlement of accounts, including warehouse rents, was agreed to pay the Plaintiff’s warehouse rents at KRW 600,000 per month with the Defendants around May 2017, but also the Plaintiff’s agreement to pay the Plaintiff’s warehouse rents at KRW 600,000.