대여금반환
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.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant, known to the extent of 10 years, began to return to the Defendant from the end of February 2017, and on March 14, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant found the Plaintiff’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her herth her second her second her her second her second her her second her second her second her second her second her second her second her second her second her second her, and the following day that the Plaintiff and the Defendant sent KRW 5 million to
The plaintiff asserts that the amount remitted to the defendant on March 15, 2017 is the amount loaned to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the above amount is the amount donated to the defendant who had not returned to the defendant at the time.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof for the fact that the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is a loan not a donation.
In light of the Plaintiff’s statement that “the Defendant did not request the Plaintiff to pay not only money but also money, but also money was remitted to the Defendant as desired,” in view of the Plaintiff’s statement (the first date for pleading) that “the Plaintiff sent money to the Plaintiff,” the Defendant’s letter that the Plaintiff asked that “the Plaintiff would send money,” and that “the Plaintiff, who was found in the Jeju-do restaurant where the Defendant worked, should deposit money in five hundred thousand won per month,” is insufficient to recognize that the said money was a loan to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
As such, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.