대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant, including the sum of KRW 24.5 million on November 19, 2013 and KRW 28 million on December 17, 2013, but the Defendant did not repay that amount 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.
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). The Plaintiff, on November 19, 2013, remitted KRW 20 million to the Cbank account (Account Number D) in the name of the Defendant, and KRW 4.5 million to the E Bank account in the name of the Defendant on the same day, and KRW 28 million in the name of the Defendant on December 17, 2013, respectively, to the C Bank account in the name of the Defendant on December 17, 2013, is recognized as a result of a dispute between the parties or as a result of an order to submit financial transaction information with Party A, C Bank, and E Bank.
However, evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1 and 1
4. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence 11 to 13, witness H’s partial testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s transfer of money to the account under the name of the Defendant was a loan to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
1) The Plaintiff is the friendship of H and the Defendant was a spouse under the law with H. 2) The Defendant was a person who was a spouse under the law with H. 2) and was not able to engage in financial transactions with bad credit due to his debt while he was in office as an I employee. On November 201, 2013, the Defendant, the spouse of the Defendant, who was the spouse, leased the Nam-gu J apartment commercial building in Busan-gu, Busan, and the Defendant started to operate the Lart (hereinafter “instant Mart”).
3. The Plaintiff is KRW 24.5 million on three occasions on November 19, 2013, and KRW 28 million on three occasions on December 17, 2013.