손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. According to the records of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff filed a joint claim against the Defendant for damages arising from embezzlement of KRW 20,000,000 and the loan of KRW 20,000 against the Defendant at the court of first instance, and each of the above claims was all dismissed. Since the Plaintiff filed an appeal for objection against the part of the claim for damages arising from embezzlement as the repayment state, the part of the claim for damages arising from embezzlement is not dissatisfied with the loan claim, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the loan claim.
2. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a gallon 6th floor gallon 6th floor in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On October 10, 2010, the Defendant is a person delegated by the Plaintiff with affairs related to the management and purchase interference of the instant real estate.
B. On December 27, 2010, Nonparty E purchased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff in KRW 200,000,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 29, 2010.
C. On December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff delivered KRW 20,000 to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 6 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings
3. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On December 29, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant lent KRW 20,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant demanded the return thereof. The Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, but merely received KRW 20,000,000 under the pretext of the cost of the loan, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the amount paid by the Defendant is the loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff did not recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion of loans, and the Defendant’s assertion of the additional claim (e.g., revocation by fraud and return of unjust enrichment).