손해배상(기)등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows. The reasons for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s determination as to the addition of the allegations added by this court. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420
The second 19th 19th 19th 19th 10th 10th 10th 2th 19th 2th 10th 10th 2th 10th
Then, following the last 3rd of the judgment of the first instance court, “(i) the Defendant maintained a de facto marital relationship while living with the Plaintiff from around 2003 to October 2008 while maintaining a de facto marital relationship, and thus, as the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued to engage in a business even after the de facto marital relationship is terminated, it is difficult to view “E” as engaging in a business.
The following is added to the 5th 7th 7th 7th of the first instance judgment, “(the plaintiff did not submit the original evidence of No. 11 even before this court).”
2. Additional assertion
A. The plaintiff presented Gap evidence No. 15, a copy of the loan certificate in this court, and the defendant borrowed KRW 115 million from the plaintiff on May 20, 201, and therefore the plaintiff and the defendant were in a partnership relationship with the business of "E".
B. The evidence No. 15 was submitted as a copy, and there was no evidence to prove the existence of the original, and the Plaintiff did not assert or prove justifiable grounds for failure to submit the original document. Thus, the statement No. 15 alone can only be proven as the existence of such a copy, and it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff on May 20, 201 as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 115 million from the Plaintiff on May 20, 2011, as alleged by the Plaintiff, such fact alone is sufficient to support that the Plaintiff engaged in the business of “E” with the Defendant.