1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to KRW 11,00,000,000 against the Defendant on January 7, 2011 does not exist.

2...

1. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that KRW 11,00,000, transferred from the Defendant on January 7, 201, the Defendant did not borrow the Plaintiff’s money that the Defendant borne by the Defendant to re-consign the Plaintiff to the chairperson of the Promotion Committee for the Establishment of the CHousing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant Promotion Committee”), or that the Plaintiff did not borrow the money. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff loaned the Plaintiff the expenses incurred in re-convening the Plaintiff’s Chairperson.

B. 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the Plaintiff, who is the debtor, asserts that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the first claim in the first place, the Defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the requisite for legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998). In addition, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account due to a transfer, etc., the remittance may be based on various legal causes, and even if there is no dispute as to the fact that money is available between the parties, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving the lending to the claimant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014; 100Da17171, Jan. 1, 2017).

However, each entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, and part of Eul 1 evidence.