beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The Defendant, who works in the Plaintiff’s golf practice range operated by the Plaintiff, found the Plaintiff along with C, and agreed that “If the remainder is leased KRW 30 million as it is insufficient to obtain D award, he/she shall repay it later for three months.” On January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s account and lent the said money to the Defendant, thereby claiming for KRW 30 million and delay damages against the Defendant.
B. The defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff.
C used an account in the name of the Defendant with bad credit standing, and the above KRW 30 million was partially repaid by C from November 5, 2010 to February 7, 201, which was leased to the Plaintiff from February 7, 201.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there was a receipt of money but the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof on the Plaintiff who asserted that the loan was lent.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972; 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da26187, Dec. 12, 1972
According to the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-1, 30 million won has been transferred from the Plaintiff’s account under the name of E, to the Defendant’s name.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 7-1, 2, 3, and 1 and 2 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows: ① there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the loan before the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order; ② C has made monetary transactions with the Plaintiff; ② has submitted a confirmation of the fact that he used the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant (Evidence No. 2); ③ the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff received only KRW 1,44 million out of the loan of KRW 142 million, and the Plaintiff received only KRW 1,44 million from the loan of KRW 100 million. As such, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff had a monetary transaction with C.