대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
1. On May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 6,400,000 in cash to the co-defendant C, D (hereinafter “Co-defendants of the first instance trial”) and the Defendant requesting the Plaintiff to lend money to the Plaintiff due to lack of money in acquiring E points, and on June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 7,60,000 in cash to the co-defendants of the first instance trial and the Defendant, and on June 4, 2012, KRW 1,20,000 in cash, respectively, to the passbook of the Defendant’s name. Accordingly, the Defendant also is jointly and severally liable with the co-defendants of the first instance trial.
2. Determination
A. Where a remittance is made to another person’s deposit account, the remittance may be made based on various causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, simple delivery, etc. Therefore, even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the existence of the amount of money, the other party’s assertion that the lending was made shall bear the burden of proof to the person who asserts the lending.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Each of the descriptions of Doctrine, Gap Nos. 1 and 3, and evidence No. 7-1 is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the joint obligor with the co-defendants of the first instance trial together with the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
B. In addition, even if the Plaintiff’s above assertion was arranged to the purport of seeking joint and several liability to the Defendant pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant had a business relationship with the co-defendants of the first instance trial only by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 and No. 7-1, and there
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.