대여금반환청구 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought the return of the purchase price and the loan to the Defendant, and the court of first instance accepted the claim for the return of the purchase price and dismissed the claim for the return of the loan.
This Court's judgment is limited to the claim for the return of the loan, since only the plaintiff appealed the part against the plaintiff.
2. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the judgment on the claim for the return of loan exchange money, the plaintiff claims the cause of the receipt of money as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972, etc.). In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the loan, the Defendant asserted that the loan was made at work expense and denied the fact of the loan. Therefore, the burden of proving that the loan agreement was made exists is against the Plaintiff.
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the fact that the plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 3 million to the defendant's entire account over three times on February 12, 2016, March 9, 2016, and March 18, 2016, to the defendant's entire account.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above three million won to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim for return of loan is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.