beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. The costs incurred after the appeal are filed by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
As to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of this court is the same as the entry in the column of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance other than the entry in the following 2. Thus, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. In addition, the entry shall be made from 3th to 4th 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.
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 Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). In the instant case, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence of subparagraphs 9 through 13, cannot be recognized as lending KRW 850,00,00 to the Defendant solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence of subparagraphs 9 through 13, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
The following is added to the last 7th part of the judgment of the court of first instance. For this purpose, the Plaintiff: (a) lent KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff, E, and H third parties; (b) adjusted the Plaintiff to lend KRW 250 million to H; and (c) adjusted the Plaintiff to offset the Plaintiff’s loans to H by means of the Plaintiff’s loans to the Plaintiff around the end of December 2017; and (d) submitted the Customer Director (Evidence A, 10) and the former (Evidence A, 12, 13) as evidence consistent with his/her assertion. However, each of the above evidence was unilaterally prepared by the Plaintiff or E; and in particular, the former (Evidence A, No. 12, No. 12, Apr. 18, 2017; and (e) the former (Evidence A, No. 2813, Dec. 31, 2017).