금전소비대차금
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. On October 3, 2006, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent 10 million won to the defendant on October 3, 2006, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above money.
2. On October 3, 2006, the plaintiff transferred 10 million won from his bank account to the defendant's bank account by account transfer, although there is no dispute between the parties, in light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding up the entries in subparagraphs 1 and 4, and the witness's testimony to the whole purport of the pleadings, the statement in subparagraphs 1 and 3, and the witness's testimony are hard to believe or conform to the plaintiff's assertion, and the above remittance and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the plaintiff's assertion. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(1) In cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, repayment, investment, contract payment, etc. Therefore, the fact that the remittance was made cannot be readily concluded that the money was a loan, and the Plaintiff, who asserts that the remittance was made, bears the burden of proving that the money was a loan.
② However, there is no document such as a loan certificate or a cash storage certificate, which can prove that the above 10 million won is a loan, and the plaintiff's assertion on the repayment period or the interest agreement ordinarily accompanying the loan is unclear.
③ The Plaintiff sent text messages to the Defendant on December 26, 2016 only after the lapse of ten years from October 3, 2006, which remitted the above KRW 10 million to the Defendant, to the effect that the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on December 26, 2016, and that the Plaintiff returned the loan immediately before the said application was made. There is no objective data to view that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to return the loan claimed during about ten (10) years, and that there was no objective data to view that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to return the loan claimed.