대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts modified as set forth below 2, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. At the bottom of the second part of the judgment of the first instance, 3 to 3, 1, as follows.
Considering the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 5, 11, and 13 (including each number), it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff to the Defendant as a loan. (1) There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant had a relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant during the period of the said monetary transaction. In addition, even though a large number of letters have been published during the said period, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff would return the money to the Defendant for the first time on September 1, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the money to the Defendant. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with each other during the said period of the said monetary transaction, such as “loan, loan, and maturity” (at the time of the said monetary transaction, there is no such content as above at the time of the instant lawsuit (see, e.g., what was three months prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.
(2) (2) The Defendant appears to have been required to pay money on or around February 2017 to acquire refined stocks. However, it appears that the Defendant prepared money necessary for the said acquisition with a house sale price and bank loans (35 million won) and paid the acquisition price by February 24, 2017.
The Defendant received KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff on March 7, 2017, and kept it in an account without immediately using it. The Defendant used KRW 35,000,000 on March 16, 2017 to repay the above bank loans and kept the remainder in custody.
On April 23, 2017, it seems that the Plaintiff paid KRW 78,00,000 to the Plaintiff.
In other words, the defendant was not in need of money at the time of March 7, 2017.