beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. From December 14, 2006 to March 16, 2009, the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 29,000,000 as shown below [Attachment 1] on seven occasions.
[Attachment 1] The temporary amount from the sequence 1,206 No. 1,0070,000 on December 14, 2006 5, 2000 on August 6, 2008 1,000,000 on August 6, 2008; 6, 1,000,000 on August 24, 2008; 1,000,000 on April 29, 2003 on April 29, 200 on March 1, 2008; 1,000,000,7 200 on March 5, 2009; 1,7,000,000 on January 7, 200, 2000,000;
B. The Defendant has paid out the above money by selling his own house, and has not paid up to now.
C. The defendant living together with the plaintiff, and argued that he was a donation of the above money in the process, but the plaintiff did not have any fact living with the defendant and there is no reason to donate money.
The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 29,00,000 and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said money is a loan, the Defendant did not dispute the fact that the said money was paid to the Defendant, but the said money claimed that the Plaintiff, who operated the stud club in Ctel underground, was either paid as part of the activity expenses or donated in personal relation to the Defendant, who was working as a member of the emergency countermeasures against the said officetel.
B. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that a loan was granted even if the number of money was recognized, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion that the payment of money was based on the loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015). The Plaintiff’s assertion that the payment of money was based on the loan for consumption, which is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said money was extended, based on the documentary evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (i.e., evidence of content).
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.