beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, lent the said money to the Defendant by remitting KRW 44 million to the account designated by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the above loan principal KRW 44 million and delay damages from the next day after the due date.
2. Determination
A. Where a remittance is made by transferring money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes. In order for the remittance to be recognized as a loan, it must be proved that the money was paid under a loan for consumption, and the burden of proof for this is against the claimant (the plaintiff in this case).
B. In light of the above legal principles, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence) submitted by the plaintiff cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity, and according to the evidence Nos. 2 through 5, the defendant leased an officetel upon Eul's brokerage, and the plaintiff is recognized to have remitted KRW 44 million to the account in the name of Eul according to the defendant's designation, but the above circumstance alone is not deemed to have leased the above KRW 44 million to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to deem that the monetary loan contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Rather, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3 through 6 and the arguments, the defendant, who was in office as an internal director, sold to D on March 25, 2013, the amount of 320 Sico L3 Scis 3 Scis 3 to KRW 88 million (including value-added tax). On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff was subject to the provisional attachment order for 44 million loan claims against the defendant as the claim amount, but the provisional attachment order for sciston car owned by the defendant was issued, but the provisional attachment was revoked by the plaintiff, and there was no data that the plaintiff received interest from the defendant.