beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserts that, if the Defendant lent KRW 30,000,000, the Plaintiff promised to pay KRW 2,500,000 each month for one year, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000 to the Defendant’s account on November 17, 2014.
The defendant asserts that around November 2014, the defendant received 30,000,000 won from the plaintiff as scarout expenses or settlement support expenses, and the above money was set in consideration of the money to be paid by the defendant to the previous workplace, the gap period between the two months during which the time of departure from employment occurs, and it was not borrowed from the plaintiff.
2. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the judgment exchange money, the plaintiff claims the cause of receiving money as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the cause is a loan
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). According to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30,000 to the Defendant on November 17, 2014.
However, each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, which are acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings, is as follows: ① there was no certificate of loan between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the above KRW 30,000,00, ② there was no agreement and payment of interest accrued from ordinary loans; ② there is no room to deem that there was a kind of relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time when the plaintiff paid the above money to the defendant; ③ there is no objective evidence to prove that the plaintiff urged the defendant to pay the above money; ④ there was no reason to prove that the plaintiff had urged the defendant to pay the money; ④ the defendant working as an insurance solicitor at the time of receiving the above money; and ④ the defendant was retired from office as another insurance agency; around July 2015, the defendant was transferred from the plaintiff account in the name of the plaintiff to the defendant as a stock company.