기타(금전)
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 Plaintiff is an employee of Dongdong company Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dongdong company”), and the Defendant served as an employee of White Drugs Co., Ltd., and was employed by the Plaintiff as an employee of Dongdong company around the end of 2013 and was employed as an employee of Dong Dong company around May 2015.
B. On December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 3,200,000 to the Defendant. Around that time, the Plaintiff delivered KRW 800,000 to the Defendant in cash.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1-2 through 1-3, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff as a loan, since the Defendant intended to borrow KRW 10,000,000 to Dong-dong company but it was impossible to borrow KRW 4,00,000, and the Plaintiff agreed to borrow KRW 4,000 to himself/herself, and the Plaintiff delivered KRW 4,00,000 to the Defendant on December 9, 2013. The issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant borrowed the said money from the Plaintiff.
On the other hand, the confirmation document No. 6-1 of the evidence is inconsistent with the plaintiff's statement that "the plaintiff who had a C-place of business lent money to the defendant," and that "self-reliance served as a D-place of business" is inconsistent with the plaintiff's statement. The document No. 4 of the evidence agreement is unclear at the time of preparation and it is hard to believe all the above evidence.
In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant borrowed KRW 4,00,00 from the plaintiff only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6-2 through 6-3 of the evidence Nos. 6. The plaintiff's claim is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 9, the defendant actually provided his work from November 18, 2013 to Dong company as the salary of December 9, 2013.