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. Basic facts
A. The defendant is a married person with C, and the plaintiff is the head of the defendant.
B. While the Defendant and C resided in the “Etel” located in Busan, upon the recommendation of the Defendant’s parents, intended to exchange “F building” and “Etel located in Busan Shipping Daegu, where the Defendant’s parents live.”
C. On January 17, 2016, G and 48,849,550 won (i.e., construction price of KRW 28,00,000,000) the Defendant and C concluded a construction contract for the interior of the above F building in accordance with Article 20,849,550, respectively.
After that, the above construction cost has been increased from KRW 28,00,000 to KRW 31,275,400.
On February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10,000 to the Defendant.
E. C filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for divorce, etc. on July 5, 2016
(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the family court 2016Ddan206426). [Ground for Recognition], Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. On February 18, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000 to the Defendant. Notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s demand, the Defendant did not pay KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant.
The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff.
B. The plaintiff's assertion that he lent money between the parties to the judgment even if there is no dispute as to the fact that he received money, has the burden of proof as to the fact of the lending when the defendant contestss the defendant.
(Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.). The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10,000 to the Defendant on February 18, 2016 is as mentioned above, but the testimony of the witness Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-1, and witness of the trial court is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was a loan of KRW 10,000,00 that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant on February 18, 2016, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, it is true.